Unmasking the

Man in the Iron Mask

Cold Case Review

Peter Curran

Copyright © Peter Curran 2019

petecurran007@gmail.com

All rights reserved

ISBN: 9781691051809
ASIN: 1691051802

First published August 2019

Updated September 2022

Acknowledgements

Thank you to everyone who has helped me in my research, not least,

historians Paul Sonnino, Jean-Christian Petitfils, Eric Corp and Alan
Marshall. Thank you also George Wigley, John Grace and David Blagrove
for their encouragement and advice. A special thank you also to the
assistance received from many patient archivists at Kew Public Records
Office, the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the Vatican Archive and the French
National Archives. Finally thank you Steve Jowers and Kathryn Baines for
proof-reading.

Peter Curran

Contents
Part One 6

Chapter 1 A lingering death 7

Chapter 2 The Republican 12

Chapter 3 Grand Designs 29

Chapter 4 Bonhomme 39

Chapter 5 Sinister 47

Chapter 6 Croissy 65

Chapter 7 Intelligence 80

Chapter 8 Abduction 86

Chapter 9 The wheel of fortune 95

Chapter 10 See Naples and die 109

Chapter 11 Knave or prince 125

Chapter 12 Suspicions 134

Chapter 13 A valet of consequence 147

Chapter 14 Loose ends 167

Part Two 174

Chapter 15 Troublesome valets 175

Chapter 16 Danger 181

Chapter 17 Rumours 188

Chapter 18 Mayhem 194

Chapter 19 Escape 214

Chapter 20 Improvements 224

Chapter 21 Complications 234

Chapter 22 Misbehaviour 241

Chapter 23 Salvation 248

Chapter 24 The wine maker 258

Chapter 25 Providence in Provence 267

Chapter 26 Bastille 278

Chapter 27 Unmasking 289

Chapter 28 More loose ends 304

Annexe 310

Sources and Bibliography 357

Part One

6
Chapter 1 – A lingering death
 Chapter 1
A lingering death
Oh Majesty, hear the voice of a subject who implores you,
For thirty-four years overwhelmed by his lot,
In a dark dungeon, abandoned like a corpse

Since the prisoner’s transfer to the Bastille Prison in Paris from a prison
in southern France some three years earlier, each Sunday followed the same
routine. A small escort arrived outside the prison cell and a trusted guard
entered to ensure that the prisoner’s mask was securely in place before
escorting him down the spiral staircase of the prison tower and out into the
courtyard already cleared of prisoners. From there it was a short walk to the
prison chapel where Sunday Mass was held.
For the past thirty-four years, Louis XIV, King of France had graciously
permitted his “long-time prisoner” to attend Mass on Sunday and Holy
Days on condition that Saint-Mars, the Prison Governor could vouch that
the prisoner could not talk or secretly communicate with anybody.
Inside the chapel, the Prisoner was placed alone in a small cubicle until
the appropriate moment in the Mass, when as the Priest raised the Holy
Communion above his head and avowed “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus”, the
curtain was opened to allow the prisoner to gaze upon the Holy Eucharist.
A few seconds later the curtain was closed.
Apart from a trusted guard bringing food once a day and asking the
long-time prisoner if he required anything for his daily needs, this precious
time in the prison chapel was the only occasion that the Masked Prisoner
was allowed to be close to other people. This particular Sunday in
November 1703, was no different from any other until, on leaving the
chapel, the prisoner suddenly felt ill and collapsed in the courtyard. After
carrying him to his cell, the prison chaplain comforted the Prisoner until ten
o’ clock in the evening of the following day, when he died. Saint-Mars, the
Prison Governor was immediately informed and after satisfying himself
that his long-time prisoner was indeed dead, he duly sent a messenger to
advise the French Court.
Undoubtedly that evening the ageing Saint-Mars, already seventy-seven
years old himself, reflected upon his military career, not least the past thirty
or so years, during which time he had guarded the Man in the Iron Mask, in
accordance with King Louis XIV’s precise command.

********

The Man in the Iron Mask is first mentioned in writing during the latter
part of the seventeenth century when Louis XIV transferred a prisoner to
Sainte Marguerite Island in southern France. He came to wider public
attention in the eighteenth century when Voltaire provided sketchy details
in his History of Louis XIV. In the 19th century, the legend of the Man in
the Iron Mask was popularised in Dumas’s Musketeer novels and in the
20th century he appeared in a plethora of adventure films. More recently, in
the 21st century the Masked Prisoner featured in the BBC drama series
“Versailles.”
In modern popular legend, the enigmatic masked prisoner is the twin
brother of Louis XIV who was hidden away in solitary confinement and
made to wear an iron mask. Historians have long since debunked this
fiction, nonetheless the legend is founded on the true history of a masked
prisoner, secretly incarcerated on the orders of King Louis XIV, who for
over thirty years was closely guarded, mainly in solitary confinement and
made to wear a mask whenever he was seen in public, to prevent him from
speaking out about “what he knew or had seen” until he died from natural
causes in the Bastille in 1703.
The publication of this research in 2019 commemorates three hundred
and fifty years since the Man in the Iron Mask was arrested and
imprisoned. Over the centuries many inquisitive researchers and historians
have proposed over fifty candidates as the true face behind the Mask and
tried to reveal the reason why he was imprisoned in such an unusual
manner.
This Cold Case Review re-examines existing and exciting new evidence
recently discovered in the national archives of England, France and the
Vatican, which shed important new light on this enigma and finally reveal
the true history of the Man in the Iron Mask. At the same time, this work
provides a revelatory insight into the underbelly of spying and espionage
between France and England during the time of Charles II, King of
England and Louis XIV, King of France.
This work is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the period
leading up to the arrest of the Man in the Iron Mask and reveals his identity
and the reasons for his arrest. The second part deals with the “prison years”
of the Man in the Iron Mask and reveals the detective work undertaken
over the centuries by many historians to identify which of Saint-Mars’s
several prisoners was the Masked Prisoner. For those who wish to have a
fuller understanding of the history, they may wish to read Part Two before
Part One.
For those who are impatient to discover the face behind the Mask, the
prison records reveal that the Man in the Iron Mask’s prison-name was
Eustache Danger. He was male, a valet by profession, a Catholic, and aged
about 45 years when he died in the Bastille prison in November 1703. The
decision to arrest Eustache Danger was taken by Louis XIV on or before
th
the 19 July 1669 when letters were issued for his arrest which took place
about the end of July 1669 in the Calais area, from where he was removed
to a remote prison of Pignerol in the south-east of France. Louvois, the
French Minister gave ambiguous reasons why Eustache Danger had been
arrested. It was because of something he had seen, been employed at, or
knew. Whatever this was, the reason for his imprisonment is as important as
the masked prisoner’s true identity. The masked remained a prisoner of
consequence to Louis XIV until his death at the Bastille Prison in Paris in
November 1703.
The dating of documents in the seventeenth century is problematic due
to the two calendars then in use which resulted in the date in England being
recorded as ten days earlier than the same day on the continent (increasing
to eleven days after 1700). For example, the English date of the 23rd July
1669 occurred in most of Continental Europe on the 2nd August 1669.
Where it is essential to date events to the day across more than one country,
both dates are provided, e.g., 23rd July/2nd August 1669.

6
Chapter 2 - The Republican

Chapter 2
The Republican

Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones,

Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold...

Pignerol, where Eustache Danger, the Man in the Iron Mask was
imprisoned in late 1669, lies near the entrance to the Perosa Valley in the
southern Alps. During the snow season, on his rare sorties out of Pignerol,
it was often easier for Saint-Mars, the masked prisoner’s gaoler to travel
eastwards through the Dutchy of Savoie (part of modern Italy) and reach
France by through the southern Alps, avoiding the higher snow-covered
passes to the north at Montgenévre and Mont Cenis which even in modern
times are often impassable during heavy snowfall.
In the seventeenth century a religious sect named the Waldensians, lived
in the Perosa valleys. The religion of this protestant reformist group ran
contrary to the strict dogma of the Roman Catholic Church and over the
years various Popes had exhorted the Dukes of Savoie to use all means to
prevent these “heretics” from establishing a firm foothold in land so close
to the Vatican City.
In January 1655, fifteen years before Eustache Danger arrived at
Pignerol, the oppression of the Waldensians reached new heights of
barbarity. The “Gastaldo Order” required all Waldensians to renounce their
reformist religion and convert to Catholicism, or remove themselves to
more remote inhospitable mountainous areas of The Piedmont under pain
of death …to every head of family and household of the claimed reformed
(Protestant) religion, of whatever rank, degree, or condition, none
excepted…that within three days after the publication and execution of this
order, to withdraw and depart with their families out of the said places, and
be transported into the places and limits tolerated by his Royal
Highness...under pain of death and confiscation of houses and goods…
Excluded from this order, those that inform us within twenty days that they
have become Catholics, or that they have sold their goods to Catholics…
During the winter of 1654/55, government troops were billeted amongst
the Waldensian settlements to purposely provoke the inhabitants into acts
of disobedience. The inhabitants of Roras were the first of many areas to
resist which led to the Easter Massacres of 1655 when hundreds of
Waldensians, women and children included, were butchered by the troops
of the Marquis of Pianezza. The massacre provoked a general uprising and
the Waldensians undertook a guerrilla campaign against Pianezza’s troops.
News of the Easter massacre rapidly spread throughout Protestant Europe.
Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of England, together with leaders of
other Protestant states, angrily protested to Louis XIV whose troops had
allegedly participated in the Oppression.
At this time France and England were negotiating a new treaty and
Cromwell insisted that a clause be added, requiring the French King to
redress the wrongs that the Duke of Savoie had inflicted on the
Waldensians. Oliver Cromwell informed Louis XIV …it became the King
of France all the more to interfere, as it was known that the French had
been involved in this business… Cromwell also sent a diplomatic delegation
firstly to the French Court to ask Louis XIV to personally intercede. Next
the delegates travelled on to Turin to directly petition the Duke of Savoie.
The mission was successful in part. Louis XIV arranged for his
Ambassador in Turin to arbitrate a settlement which the Waldensians were
obliged to accept under duress.
Sir Samuel Morland, was a member of the English delegation. He was a
man of diverse talents. After completing his education at Magdalene
College, Cambridge, Morland remained there for a while and was a tutor to
Samuel Pepys. After the Civil War, during the English Interregnum,
Morland joined Cromwell’s Government and by 1654 he was working as
an assistant to John Thurloe, Secretary of State who was also responsible
for the Cromwell’s spy network. After completing his Waldensian mission
and spending some time in Geneva, Morland returned to England where he
went on to become an inventor, code-maker, code-breaker, spy and even a
traitor to his native country. During the Waldensian Uprising Morland
became acquainted with a French Huguenot named Claude Roux de
Marcilly who fought alongside the Waldensians. some years later Morland
would play a role in the “Tragic Adventure of Roux de Marcilly.”
After the Waldensian Revolt, Roux returned to France where he
suffered a number of failed business ventures which he blamed on Louis
XIV and by 1667 a disgruntled Roux was employed by the Spanish
Netherlands during the War of Devolution against the French. After this
war, Roux’s hatred of Louis XIV had not abated and by 1668 he became a
member of a secretive “Group of Ten” who plotted to overthrow Louis XIV
and establish a republic in France. The Group sent Roux as their emissary
around Europe to seek support from various countries including Spain, the
Spanish Netherlands, the Austrian Empire, England and the Protestant
Cantons of Switzerland. By May 1668, Roux had arrived in London where
he renewed his acquaintance with Samuel Morland.
Whilst Morland had worked for the Cromwellian interregnum, before
the Restoration in 1660 of Charles II, he the foresight to change his
allegiance to the Royalist cause, even gaining Charles II’s lasting gratitude
by warning him of an assassination plot. Morland was knighted for this
timely service and in post-Restoration London he turned his mind to
scientific matters and the English government made good use of his unique
inventive skills. Morland invented various espionage and spying devices,
including coding and decoding machines. He effectively became the senior
scientific adviser to the Restoration’s secret service department which was
controlled by Secretary of State, Lord Arlington, assisted by his under-
secretary, Sir Joseph Williamson.
In 1664, Morland greatly impressed Lord Arlington with a
demonstration of one of his inventions. Arlington was requested to provide
Morland with a sealed document and shortly afterwards, Morland handed
back the original, perfectly resealed, plus three exact copies of the contents.
Arlington was unable to tell which of the documents was the original or
even discern that the seal on the package had been tampered with.
Arlington had Morland repeat the experiment in the presence of Charles II
and soon afterwards Morland’s equipment was installed at the London Post
Office and used to open, copy and reseal intercepted diplomatic mail. In
1667, Morland’s genius was evidently much valued by the English
Government. Morland submitted …a bill of expenses for his circular cipher
and…printing 500 copies about its use, plate, papers, etc. Total
£272.10.0…
It was believed that the practice of opening foreign diplomatic
correspondence ended in 1666, after the Great Fire of London supposedly
destroyed Morland’s special apparatus. However, correspondence in the
French National Archives proves that the English Government continued
intercepting and decoding diplomatic correspondence after this date. In
April 1668, Morland turned traitor when he showed several of his secret
inventions to Ruvigny, the French ambassador to the English Court. He
demonstrated his equipment as he had done to Arlington and Charles II.
Morland even informed Ruvigny that the English were intercepting and
decoding French diplomatic correspondence.
Ruvigny immediately wrote to the French King, Louis XIV describing
the sophistication of Morland’s inventions. Although Morland’s name is not
mentioned in this first letter, from internal evidence and subsequent
correspondence his identity is evident. Ruvigny’s description of Morland’s
inventions might not sound out of place today, being typical of what one
might find in a modern spy’s toolbox …I return to you a letter from the
King (Louis XIV), which you will see, is accompanied by exact copies of the
same. This has been achieved through methods employed by a person who
has viewed many of our letters which have been opened and which
continue to be opened. After some research I discovered who this man is
and took up a particular custom with him and on some knowledge that I
had of what has happened to him, I arranged it him to show me the
experiments which I describe below, which may appear incredible to one
who have not seen them. There is no exaggeration in any of this. He is a
wise and honest gentleman who has a house in the city and in the country,
with 1500 pounds sterling of income, and in addition he is a great
mathematician and has made:
• A machine for making a counterfeit seal from a mould made with
wax and another for making a counterfeit seal from a mould made from
magic dough.
• Several machines for quickly opening all sorts of letters or packets
and resealing them with wax or magic dough.
• A machine to counterfeit all types of writing without exception.
• A machine for quickly copying any writing, at least twenty sheets
completely filled in a half-hour.
• A liquid for quickly removing any sort of writing and replacing it
with any words one chooses using the same letters and a process for
making them appear old or new to any degree that one might wish.
• An infinite number of indecipherable codes, which can be used
with more ease than any other. One writes by this method six times
quicker than by other posts.
• He has several other useful secrets, which I have not yet witnessed,
• and he is a character who appears to me to be most ingenious…

Ruvigny’s next remark leaves no doubt about the degree of Morland’s

treachery …If they knew here (in England) what was happening between
me and this gentleman, he would at least lose his liberty. You will
appreciate yourself sire the importance of this secret…
If Morland’s spying equipment in use at the London Post Office was
destroyed during the Great Fire of 1666, then Morland certainly had his
own duplicates in 1668 which he now sought to sell to the French and even
other countries. It is known that a certain Celio Malapina (a latinised
version of Samuel Morland) offered similar services to the Venetian
Government around this time.
Later that month, Ruvigny wrote again to the French Court, to warn
them that Morland (now mentioned under the cover-name, the author of the
letters) was being employed again by the English government and
consequently the French Court must be wary of what they wrote in their
diplomatic dispatches to England …They (the English Court) have again
given employment to the author of the letters that I sent to you.
Consequently, I will now treat with suspicion all correspondence even
from my own best friends! …
The following month, Morland was appointed as an Excise
Commissioner for England and Wales ...Commission granted to Sir Samuel
Morland and four others constituting them commissioners of Excise in
England and Wales with powers to govern the said revenue when it is unlet
and to enter onto any farm for non-payment of rent, they are to take no fees
but to have 500 pounds per annum each... It is uncertain whether this was a
genuine appointment or simply a means to provide discrete payments to
him for providing secret services to the English Court.
Winning Morland over to the French cause had already paid a huge
dividend by alerting the French to the fact that the English Post Office were
intercepting diplomatic mail. However, the following month, Morland
th th
provided Ruvigny with even more important intelligence. On the 19 /29
May 1668, Ruvigny penned an extraordinary letter to King Louis XIV.
Morland had informed Ruvigny about a Frenchman in London who was
actively plotting to overthrow the French King and create a republic. The
man was none other than Roux de Marcilly who Morland knew from the
time of the Waldensian troubles. Morland invited Roux to his residence,
having first concealed the French Ambassador behind a tapestry, from
where Ruvigny could hear all that Roux said during a long meal with
Morland.
Roux revealed his plans to overthrow the French Monarchy and create a
republic. The Ambassadors and Ministers of several European countries
were even supporting Roux in his intrigues, including Spain, Holland,
Switzerland, the Spanish Netherlands and a Minister of the English
Government. Even more incredible, Roux planned to assassinate Louis
XIV!
...Sire, three days ago I learnt, by means too long to explain to your
Majesty, about one of his subjects, the worse-intentioned person in the
world. The reason for his voyage here being of such major importance that
I was unable to believe at first the opinion and details given to me about
this person and still less what I was told, although it from a person who is
above suspicion. Which is why, Sire I wished to witness myself by seeing
and hearing all the things that had been reported to me about him. I put
myself in a concealed place where I saw this person and listened to his
discourse which made my hair stand on end and I could react in no other
way since it concerns the security of your sacred person and the health of
our country, if there can be any truth in these unbelievable conversations.
Sire, I have seen and heard this person, the most evil in the world,
during ten hours, which was taken up in conversation during a light meal
and then a supper which the master of the house gave whilst cleverly
questioning him on various matters that I had given to him. I was in a place
from where I could see and hear him at ease, with pen and paper for
writing all that I heard him say. Which is why Sire, your Majesty, will see
no order in this account, but only the words of this man exactly as he
offered them to the master of the house, whom he has known since the time
of Cromwell and in whom it seems that providence granted that he had his
full confidence.
This villain is named Roux, 45 years of age long and full faced, tall and
fat rather than short and slender, of evil countenance and sinister-looking.
If not always, he is now a Huguenot and a native of 4 or 5 leagues from
Nimes. He has a house, from what he said, 6 leagues from Orleans at a
place called Marcilly. He says that he has served in Catalonia, that he has
many wounds, that he has served the people of the Piedmont valleys (the
Waldensians) when they took up arms against the Duke of Savoie, that your
Majesty knows him well, that you have had several secret meetings with
him and that in the latest you advised him to not mix himself in so many
affairs. He is in despair, that your Majesty owes him 60,000 Ecus which he
advanced having entered into a tax-collection undertaking in the region of
Soissons, that he is well known to Monsieur le Prince and one only has to
mention his name.
He is a good talker and is not short of brightness. He has been here for
six weeks. For a while, he only came out at nights fearing, from what he
said, of meeting me, but now he comes out in the daytime having
remembered that I am short-sighted.
He has three lackeys with him, which he employs here to deliver his
letters and collecting any correspondence whilst delivering his letters. He
also makes use of them as couriers whom he sends off abroad to his
correspondents. His principal correspondents are in Switzerland, Geneva,
Provence, Dauphiné and Languedoc. He says that these last three
provinces have intelligence with Guyenne, Poitou, Brittany and Normandy,
He has invited all the Cantons (in Switzerland) by order of a committee of
ten people who direct this conspiracy of which he named only Balthazar
who is in Geneva and Baron de Dona former Governor of Orange.
He has made the Swiss understood that the above-mentioned provinces
are so badly treated that they are resolved to revolt and form a republic for
which they would need foreign assistance, that if they wanted to help them,
they (should all) declare at the same time and that they were assured of the
help of Spain. He is certain that since last September, the Swiss have
promised to enter France and place themselves near Lyons with an army of
15,000 men as soon as Provence, Dauphine and Languedoc had taken up
arms, that he has also the word of the Spanish that they would enter
(France) at the same time,
He has reported on his (recent) Swiss voyage to the above mentioned
ten persons who are both Catholics and Huguenots acting together,
working hard to make the people revolt in these provinces that he says are
in a state of final despair. The committee of ten see each other often in
different places first in one house then another and that it is he who has
created these networks which extend, from what he says, throughout all
parts of your Kingdom (France) and that for six years he has worked on
these plans. He has been sent on behalf of the committee of ten to the
Marquis Castel-Rodrigo and then to the King of England and the Duke of
York in order to ask their aid so to have more certainty in achieving their
plans. He is instructed to acquaint them of the decision to turn France into
a republic. He found from these princes the assistance that he hoped for. He
says that he came from the Swiss Cantons to the Dauphiné where he
reported on the negotiations with the Swiss, that he then went by Lyon,
Dijon, Chalon sur Marne, Sedan, Liege, Cologne, Louvain and Brussels.
He presented himself following his orders to the Marquis de Castel Rodrigo
who after having hearing him, made him the best reception on the world,
that he had several meetings with him, that they put him in a place the same
as this, indicating to where I was hidden, in order to hear the proposition
that Temple made of an offensive and defensive league against France
between Spain, England and the United Provinces. He (Roux) stayed two
months with him, and he has obtained a passport from him in order to come
to England.
He presented himself directly to the Duke of York who after a three hour
meeting made an appointment for the following day where he said that he
would bring along Lord Arlington with whom he would have discussions
about the future and from whom he would also learn the intentions of the
King of England. He presented himself to the Count of Molina who gave
him his secretary to show him to the home of Baron de Lisola, that he gave
them a letter of introduction from the Marquis Castel Rodrigo and that he
was almost each day with these Ministers. He has not seen the Swedish or
Dutch Ambassadors. He says that he has persuaded Lord Arlington and the
Ministers of Spain that France is ready to rise in revolt, in particular the
seven provinces mentioned above. After more than thirty meetings, it is
agreed that the King of England would have Guyenne, Poitou, Brittany and
Normandy and that the Duke of York would have Sovereignty over
Provence, Dauphiné and Languedoc on condition that these Princes agree
to return to Spain all that France had taken from her since 1630.
He asserts that there is nothing more certain than this uprising; this
word is very familiar to him. He says that it will happen even without
assistance from Spain and England about which he makes no big thing. He
is confident about Spain but not at all about England. He regrets even
having come here saying that he has wasted his time. He is very proud of
the ability of his people to revolt and on the assistance that the Swiss have
promised them. He says that everything will flare-up soon, that everything
is ready, that one is not short of men, money, munitions, and that the
manifestos are already printed by a printer in Orange. He says that this is
an atrocious subject, he says that he is in a hurry to return to France, that
he is requesting his departure instantly, that the Spanish Ministers told him
that they wanted him leave only when the peace was made (with France).
The English mock him, Lisola assured him that your Majesty gives a large
pension to the Duke of York.
He will leave here as soon as possible, that Lord Arlington has given
him 100 Jacobins on three occasions which he laughs at, that the Count of
Molina gives him lots of assurances and supplies him with all things in
abundance.
He says that three years ago he went to Paris and that he made the
Foreign Ministers aware of the state of the French provinces, that at this
time the uprising could have taken place but for a dispute which occurred
between Monsieur Nolis and the Minister of Sweden over the title of
Protector of the Protestants, that he has said nothing to the Duke of York or
Arlington of the intention of turning the above-mentioned provinces into a
republic and that he will not mention it to them. He is afraid of meeting me
and that I will recognise him, which I would never have done if I met him
on the street. It is true that after having viewed him with attention for two
hours it seems to me that I have seen him and I believe that it was in
Languedoc when I was sent there fifteen years ago on your Majesty’s behalf
in order to persuade seven or eight thousand Huguenots to lay down their
arms which they had taken up to obtain vengeance on Madame d’Ornano
and the Count of Rieux who had caused the (Protestant) chapel of Vals in
Vivarais to be bricked up. I do not know if he was a Consul of Nimes where
he is well known by the manner that he speaks.
He says that Lisola has assured him that two Princes of the Empire, that
he has not named, have written to your Majesty, that the Peace being made
they believed that they would do well to cease recruitment of their troops,
but that your Majesty had replied to them that they had to continue raising
troops and that you would give them soon a matter for employing them,
that these said Princes have sent to the Emperor the original responses of
your Majesty and that there was here two copies of which Lisola possessed
one.
Already there is here so much Sire but what follows is without
comparison, one thousand times more important, this devil incarnate says
that a well supported coup will put all the world at ease, that there are a
hundred Ravaillacs in France, that more than two years ago your Majesty
was performing a revue when one of the guards fired at him but hit a
woman in the shoulder to whom your Majesty gave fifty pistolles, that he
knows this guard who is still in the same regiment that he was in.
He has a brother named Pevé or Peveille who has been in Paris for six
months, that whilst going there, he (Pevé) went by Sedan where he was
brought before Labourlie who apologised for having him brought by his
guards and asked for news of Roux his brother. He says that it is via this
brother that he writes to all his correspondents, that he drafts them in terms
that signify nothing in appearance so that he is not afraid if they are seen.
This brother sends the letters to Mr Petit, Syndic (Receiver) at Geneva who
takes care to distribute them, he says that this Mr Petit is a wealthy man of
4000 Ecus in revenue and who has intelligence links with other foreign
countries.
Roux frequents a wine merchant named Gerard who is a native of Metz
and has lived in England for twenty years. This merchant lodges with a
surgeon named Bedar in Bedford Street. It seems that it is via Gerard that
Roux has his letters delivered to his brother in Paris and that it is also to
the same Gerard that this brother addresses letters that people write to
Roux. This devil lodges in London at Monsieur Robin wine merchant in
Schandos street at the sign of the loyal subject. All these details might serve
to intercept these letters. He says that he will leave on the 1st June, that he
will pass by Brussels, from there to Sedan or Mezières or Charleville
depending on which gives the greatest security going on to Geneva where
he is expected with great anticipation. If I can learn more about this, I will
write to you about him using the name bonhomme…….
Ruvigny finished his revelatory letter with a personal plea ...Sire, when
leaving Paris for here I gave no order to my affairs believing to be only a
short time in England. They are in such a poor state and I assure your
Majesty that they will be in confusion if I do not visit France. Allow me Sire
to make this voyage, which will only last as long as it would please your
Majesty. My affairs are small enough for not having need of much time to
put them in order…
Ruvigny, aware that the English had cracked the French code and were
intercepting French diplomatic correspondence, despatched one of his
secretaries to the French Court to personally deliver his report on Roux.
The courier also carried a letter to Lionne, the French Foreign Minister …
this courier who is my secretary brings a memorandum to the King, which
contains very important matters if they are true. Although I cannot believe
all that there is, but it is impossible that there is not something fundamental
therein, since at Brussels and London they make a big thing of this demon...
During the following weeks Ruvigny sent updates to the French Court.
Roux (code name Bonhomme) was spending much time in London with
Baron Lisola, a diplomat of the Hapsburg Empire …The Bonhomme speaks
no more about leaving here. He stands by all he has said and he never
leaves the Austrian Ministers...
In June 1668, Ruvigny anxiously awaited a reply from Louis XIV on
what was to be done with Roux. He wrote to Lionne, the French Foreign
Minister suggesting that he should return to Paris in order to communicate
it directly to Louis XIV ...As soon as the bonhomme has left from here, on
which you will be warned, I will be useless here. If there is any truth in my
th
letter of the 29 May, then what I am told is of such great importance that
having been warned, it would not be well to confide it to anybody and to
bring an account of it myself. But as I fear of failing to do something which
his Majesty will not be satisfied, I await his command for my departure…
While waiting a reply from Louis XIV, Ruvigny did not waste his time.
Having already gained Morland he also won over another important
English gentleman to the French cause, Sir Ellis Leighton, a confidant and
private secretary to Charles II’s closest friend and advisor, the Duke of
Buckingham. Ruvigny believed that Leighton would be a most useful ally
to help advance the French cause in England.
In June 1668 Leighton travelled to France on a private mission for Lord
Arlington and the Duke of Monmouth. He also carried a letter from
Ruvigny to Lionne ...Whatever good opinion that my Lord Saint Albans
gives you about Monsieur Leighton the bearer of this note, I confirm what I
know already. He is a good intelligent man, a great friend of the Duke of
Buckingham, he has a great knowledge of this country of its Courts and of
all the intrigues and who has served the King (Louis XIV) well and capable
of doing it again if necessary...Please ensure that he lauds the reception
that you give him...
st th
On the 1 /11 June, Louis XIV finally replied to Ruvigny about Roux’s
intrigues. However, Ruvigny would not receive the reply until at least four
or five days later, being the usual delivery time for the Ordinary Post
between the French Court and London (even longer if conditions in the
English Channel were not good). Louis XIV ordered that Roux must be
captured and punished …I applaud your zeal and approve the decision you
took to send me an express courier in order to inform me of all that is
th
contained in your letter of the 29 of last month and of all you saw and
heard. The conclusion I have of this person that you have revealed to me
and from whom you heard such an abominable discourse is that not only
must he be the most evil man in the world, but that he is a cunning
deceiver who knows better than anyone that there is not a single foundation
of truth in all that he claims and that he seeks to gain whatever money he
can from those that he thinks are willing to believe that I would have any
concerns and that he believes capable of adding credibility to the falsities
that he has concocted. I have no need, thank god, to have any concern
about the real or false negotiations that this scoundrel might be
undertaking. However, the enormity of the crimes of which he is guilty
must not go unpunished if possible, and I have given orders on the frontier
of Champagne by where you inform me that he (Roux) himself said he
would travel on his return towards Geneva.
It will be useful however to have more particulars of the plans of this
evil person. Try to be kept informed exactly when he will leave London and
the route that he will take. When you return it will be well to leave behind
your secretary to monitor the situation there and to advise me
accordingly...I willingly grant you permission (to return to Paris) and it
would be useful for my service that you hasten to depart so that I can meet
you before Sire Colbert (de Croissy) whom I have named as (the new)
English Ambassador, leaves here. The knowledge of how you have left
affairs (in England) will assist in drafting his instructions...
6
Chapter 3 – Grand Designs

Chapter 3
Grand Designs

After Louis XIV invasion of the Spanish Netherlands in 1667, Charles

II, King of Great Britain and Ireland, having the previous year received a
bloody nose during the second Anglo-Dutch War, tried to promote a close
alliance with Louis XIV. Various proposals were discussed with Ruvigny,
the French Ambassador, but these initial overtures came to nothing. Then
in December 1667, Lord Arlington, Charles II’s Secretary of State, who is
often portrayed by historians as pro-Dutch, made a surprising proposal to
Ruvigny, undoubtedly on Charles II’s instructions, for an Anglo-French
offensive and defensive treaty against the Dutch Republic!
The French Court did not seriously pursue the proposal and in the
absence of any encouraging response from the French Court, Charles II
made alternative arrangements to check Louis XIV’s expansion in north-
rd
west Europe and on the 23 January 1668, he entered into an alliance with
the Dutch and the Swedes against the French. The terms of this “Triple
Alliance” required Louis XIV to settle the war with the Spanish
Netherlands on the basis of the French conquests made until then or a
negotiated alternative. If the French King refused to settle on these terms,
the Triple Alliance included a secret clause for an offensive league against
France. Ruvigny became aware of this secret clause and informed Louis
XIV. That same month France occupied more Spanish territory, by a
surprise invasion of the Franche-Comté, before accepting the settlement
nd
proposed by the Triple Alliance. On the 2 May 1668, the treaty of Aix-la-
Chapelle was signed by the warring parties. By this treaty Louis XIV
agreed to relinquish his recent conquest of Franche-Comté and some
conquered Flemish towns but, would retain all other towns taken during the
1667 campaign.
Charles II’s decision to join the Triple Alliance was contrary to his own
personal desire for a close union with Louis XIV and in May 1668, the very
same month that Morland exposed Roux’s intrigues against Louis XIV,
Charles II’s made a new proposal to Ruvigny which went significantly
beyond his earlier offers.
The English King now proposed none other than an offensive and
defensive treaty against all nations! Charles II proposed that this treaty
should be made by way of a gentleman’s agreement, sacred between Kings.
Ruvigny informed Louis XIV …The King of England and Monsieur the
Duke of York continue to indicate their desire to have a very close liaison
with your Majesty…The King (Charles II) told me that he would be willing
to make a treaty, gentleman to gentleman, preferring your word to any
other means in the world…It would appear that this might go further than
before which is why I beg most humbly your Majesty to send me his
instructions thereon...He (Charles II) has spoken to me again and pressed
me to make some proposition to facilitate a union with your Majesty, which
he wishes to be very close. He speaks of nothing less than an offensive and
defensive treaty towards and against all…I replied that one had mistaken
as simple compliments the many serious advances that I had previously
made to him on behalf of your Majesty…but as there was so little response
and even the latest proposals that I made uniquely to the Duke of
Buckingham and Lord Arlington had been published ten days after making
them…and I had thought that his Majesty (Charles II) would not wish to
commit himself to such similar accidents, upon which he replied to me that
I could speak to him about anything and what I said to him would be kept
most secret, that he would give me his word not to tell anybody and that it
would be an affair between our two Majesties, and that these Lords
(Buckingham and Arlington) in fact have a great passion for this alliance...
Louis XIV responded enthusiastically to this proposal through Lionne,
his Secretary for Foreign Affairs …The King (Louis XIV) has noted with
singular pleasure that you (Ruvigny) inform him that the King of Great
Britain has indicated his desire for a close liaison with his Majesty (Louis
XIV) and in particular that he said he would like this treaty to be made
gentleman to gentleman...
Ruvigny returned to France in June 1668 and whilst awaiting the arrival
of the replacement French Ambassador, Charles II continued to promote his
latest proposal for close alliance with France through his sister, a most
useful and well-placed informal ambassador. Besides Charles II and Louis
XIV being first cousins, they were also related through the marriage of
their respective siblings to each other. Charles II’s younger sister Henriette-
Anne was Louis XIV’s sister-in-law by her marriage to the French King’s
brother, Philippe, the Duc d’Orléans who was known by the plain but elite
title of Monsieur. Likewise, Henriette-Anne was simply known as
Madame.
Charles II wrote frequently to Madame, his sister. Their letters
encompassed a wide range of matters, both personal and political. In the
summer of 1668, via Madame, Charles II enlarged to Louis XIV on his
proposal for a close English-French alliance and promised Madame a
prominent role in the negotiations so that the French Court would recognise
the high esteem that he had for his sister. Charles II sought to allay any
concerns that the French Court might have about his Ministers, in particular
Lord Arlington who had promoted the Triple Alliance with the Dutch and
Swedes against the French. Charles II also hoped that Ruvigny’s
replacement would be suitably empowered to progress negotiations for the
alliance ...I cannot say much to you yet, in answer to the letters you have
written to me, concerning the good correspondence you desire there should
be between the King of France and me. I am very glad to find, by your
letters as well as Trevor's relation, the inclinations there is to meet with the
constant desire I have always had to make a stricter alliance with France
than there has hitherto been, and pray say all to the king you ought to say
from me, in return of the kindness he expresses towards me, and when
Monsieur de Colbert (the new Ambassador) comes, I hope he will have
those powers as will finish what we all desire, and be assured that
whatsoever negotiation there is between France and me, you shall always
have that part in it as they shall see the value and kindness I have for you.
One thing I desire you to take (as much as you can) out of the king of
France’s head, that my ministers are anything but what I will have them,
and they have no partiality but to my interest and the good of England…
Quite unbeknown to his Ministers of State, Charles II had very personal
secretive reasons for seeking a close union with Louis XIV. For many years
Charles II had yearned to make his religious conversion and return his three
kingdoms (England & Wales, Scotland and Ireland) to the Roman Catholic
faith. Prior to his restoration in 1660, during his exile and travels in Europe,
Charles II had already commenced his secret religious conversion, making
a private profession of faith and abjuration. Following his Restoration in
1660, Charles II attempted on more than one occasion to introduce
religious toleration into his kingdoms, but failed. Then in late 1663 Charles
II began secret negotiations directly with Rome for his religious conversion
and the return of his Kingdoms to the Roman Catholic faith!
Charles II sent his secret envoy, Sir Richard Bellings to Rome, carrying
letters of introduction from Charles II’s mother, the Dowager Queen,
Henriette-Marie and his wife Queen Catherine of Braganza (both
Catholics). Bellings’s mission in the first instance, was to request a
Cardinal’s hat for Abbot Ludovic Stewart, Almoner to the dowager Queen-
Mother and distant cousin of the royal Stuarts. Abbot Ludovic’s elevation
to Cardinal would facilitate the secret negotiations with Rome and avoid
raising suspicions in England. The archives of these secret negotiations are
held at the Jesuit Archive in Rome and include Charles II’s personal
profession of faith ...A proposition made on the part of Charles II, King of
Great Britain, for the reunion, which is so much to be desired of his three
kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland with the Apostolic and Roman
See…
Bellings’s instructions were not to enter into full negotiations for
Charles II’s religious conversion until confirmation was obtained that
Abbot Ludovic would be appointed as a Cardinal. The Pope was unable to
immediately grant this request because Charles II’s proposals first needed
to be evaluated by a Papal commission and the secret negotiations
ultimately stalled due to papal bureaucracy. The Papal commission took
two years to report its findings and when a Cardinal’s hat was finally
offered to Abbot Ludovic Stuart in 1665, he inconveniently died! At this
point Charles II abandoned his secret negotiations with Rome. Whilst these
negotiations came to nought, the very fact that they were attempted
provides clear evidence of Charles II’s strong religious feelings and his
determination to declare himself a Roman Catholic and return his kingdoms
to the Roman Catholic Faith.
Now, in 1668, Charles II wanted resurrect this dream with the assistance
of Louis XIV. Another key reason for seeking a close union with Louis
XIV was that Charles II was reeling from the very poor terms on which he
had been obliged to quickly settle the second Anglo-Dutch War, following
a humiliating Dutch raid of the River Medway a year earlier, in 1667, when
the Dutch fleet boldly sailed up the Thames and attacked the English fleet
at anchor in the Medway, destroying fifteen ships and capturing the English
flagship, the Royal Charles, and towing it off as a war trophy to the Dutch
Provinces!
In 1668, Charles II’s desire for religious conversion together with an
overwhelming urge to wage a war of revenge against the Dutch Republic
would form the two keystones of his Grand Design that later would
become enshrined in the 1670 Secret Treaty of Dover.
In the English archives, there is a surviving letter dated September
(unfortunately without any year date) from Madame to Charles II in which
she discusses in detail Charles II’s proposal for the Grand Design. Madame
wrote (in summary):
• Louis XIV’s financial position has never been better and whilst he posed
a threat to his neighbours, as long as Britain and Holland remain
 united, they had nothing to fear. As such, it is understandable that for
those not in the know (about Charles II’s desire for the religious
conversion of his kingdoms), it would appear best for Charles II not
to enter into any alliance (with France) against Holland. However,
Charles II had need of France to achieve his design concerning
Religion and Louis XIV would likely not assist Charles II if he did
not enter into a league against Holland.
• Madame believes that Charles II joining with France would not only
achieve his Religious aims, but would also provide him with glory
and financial profit, including extending his kingdom overseas and
confirming his commercial supremacy, which would never happen so
long as the Dutch Republic existed.
• If it was well planned, the Dutch war would not be of long duration and
thereafter Charles II would be in a stronger position to implement
his planned religious conversion. However, Madame thinks that if
Charles II implemented his plan before declaring war against the
Dutch, subsequent events might prevent Charles II from joining in and
profiting from the Dutch war.
• Keeping troops overseas in the conquered Dutch lands close to England,
composed of foreign mercenaries would also keep England in check
and render Parliament more amenable.
• Rather than adopting Charles II’s proposal for the French to declare war
first against the Dutch and then Charles II following suit and then
losing face by leaving the Triple Alliance, it would be better that
Charles II broke first with the Dutch under some pretext connected
with commercial rivalry.
• If Charles II declared war first, Louis XIV could also quickly declare war
before battle had commenced, Louis XIV was after all an absolute
monarch, not bound by a parliament. Charles II’s proposal of France
declaring war first ran the risk of the English Parliament refusing to
support and finance the war and insisting that Charles II abide by the
obligations of the Triple Alliance, leaving France to fight alone. By
Charles II first declaring war against the Dutch, Charles II’s
religious declaration could take place at the same time.
• As regards the wisdom of Charles II intention of informing the Pope at
this stage of his Grand Design, this would be fruitless and possibly
dangerous. The Pope would have no practical role in the execution of
the plan and the secret might leak out from Rome. Furthermore, it was
not known whether the present Pope would still be alive when he was
actually needed, whereas by approaching his successor, he would not
fail to give every assistance as he would share in the honour of having
reconciled England to the Church of Rome.
There is an ongoing debate amongst historians as to when Charles II
conceived his Grand Design. Consequently, the year date of this letter is
critical. Was it written September 1668 or September 1669? Norrington and
Feiling date the letter to September 1668 on the basis that in September
1669 the secret negotiations had progressed far beyond the strategic
thinking covered in this letter. Hutton simply mentions that formal
negotiations between England and France began in the early months of
1669. Hartmann dates the letter to 1669 on the basis that the letter mentions
that Charles II had sent Madame a letter and there is such a letter dated
1669.
However, there is clear evidence that the Grand Design (religious
conversion and a war against the Dutch) was already developed in Charles
II’s mind during 1668. He had already approached Rome, back in 1663 on
the matter of the religious conversion of his kingdoms and from early 1668,
Charles II actively sought a close Anglo-French offensive treaty against the
Dutch. Whilst this evidence alone points to Madame’s letter being dated
1668 and not 1669, there are two other important considerations that have
been overlooked by historians.
Charles II also wrote to Madame about the Grand Design in September
th
1668. In a letter dated the 14 September 1668, he explained that a
commercial treaty was needed before embarking on the rest (the Grand
Design). However, Charles II would not go into further detail in this letter
which was unsecure, being delivered by the Ordinary Post. Charles II
informed Madame that he had separately sent over a special messenger
with fuller details …The reason why I begin with a treaty of commerce is
because I must first enter upon those matters which will render the rest
more plausible here, but I shall not enter further upon this matter now
because I have done it fully by de Chapelles who will be before you before
this time…
Equally important, Madame’s letter could not possibly be dated
September 1669 simply because it was not written in code. When
negotiations for the Grand Design began in earnest in early Spring 1669,
Charles II sent Madame a cipher code and insisted from thereon that she
must use it to ensure that the Grand Design remained a closely guarded
secret. Furthermore, during 1669 there were a number of security leaks and
Madame was reminded on a number of occasions about the importance of
utmost secrecy and told that she must always use the code. Madame would
not have disobeyed these instructions.
There was a paramount reason for total secrecy. Charles II not only
required significant payments from the French, not only to fit out his ships
for battle, but also to rule his kingdoms without summoning a Parliament,
so that he could carry out the planned religious conversion of his kingdoms
unopposed! And if that was not explosive enough, Charles II wanted Louis
XIV to provide military help should it become necessary to put down any
uprising amongst his English subjects! If Madame’s uncoded letter had
fallen into the wrong hands, it would have provided more than ample
evidence to send Charles II to the executioner’s block like his father
Charles I, for “pernicious designs against his people”. On this evidence
alone and disregarding all other compelling evidence, Madame’s letter can
only be dated September 1668.
Meanwhile, in the summer of 1668, Ruvigny the French Ambassador
returned to the French Court to report on Roux who was soon planning to
leave England and travel to Switzerland.

6
Chapter 17 - Bonhomme

Chapter 4
Bonhomme

th th
On the evening of the 18 /28 1668, June Ruvigny left London for
Dover …I will not miss leaving this night on the tide, the bonhomme and I
leave the same day… However, due to bad weather in the Channel,
Ruvigny was at sea for four days. On disembarking, he sent a despatch
ahead to the French Court advising that Roux’s departure had been delayed
and that he was travelling firstly to Brussels to meet Don Juan of Austria,
the Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, who was expected there soon …I
stayed on the sea longer than I had wished, I embarked Friday the 29th
June and disembarked just now having much suffered from bad weather; I
await my horses and I will leave as soon as they arrive... The bonhomme
should depart London today for Brussels where he should stay two weeks,
perhaps longer if Don Juan does not arrive sooner, I will say more when I
have the honour of being near to his Majesty…
th
Ruvigny finally arrived at the French Court on the 5 July where he
passed on the latest intelligence he had gathered about Roux before leaving
London …Memo, presented to the King by Monsieur de Ruvigny on his
return from England …The bonhomme assures that he is certain of the
fortified towns of Narbonne, Montpellier, Aigues Mortes and Du Pont St
Esprit…The bonhomme will stay here until the count of Molina goes to
Brussels to meet Don Juan when he arrives. He (Roux) shows the most evil
intentions and this is what makes him well received by the Spanish. That is
all one can say of them...
Ruvigny also revealed that some of the Swiss Cantons were considering
entering into a treaty with England and that Roux hoped Morland might be
appointed to negotiate it ...England accepts a proposal from the Swiss for
making an alliance together, but that etiquette requires that the Swiss send
somebody to request this...Lisola has made it understood that he will return
soon to his home in Franche-Comté, in order to consult with the Swiss. He
has persuaded Mr Arlington to advise the King of England to instruct
Morland to draw up the notes of this alliance with the Swiss. They want to
send him (Morland) to Switzerland to do the same as when he was sent by
Cromwell at the time of the disorder in the Piedmont (Waldensian) valleys,
the Ministers of Spain have been to see him (Morland) and advised him to
undertake this voyage…
Ruvigny, unaware of Charles II’s Grand Design also provided a
summary of his recent conversations with Charles II …In the recent
conversations I had with the King of England, I have never found him
consistent in his way of thinking. He has always expressed a strong desire
to unite more closely with the (French) King, knowing full well that
nothing can be more advantageous, nor more needed for the advantage
of his affairs, but he often changed his opinion as to the manner (of
.
achieving this)...
Ruvigny’s also alerted Louis XIV to the fact that Charles II Secretary of
state, Lord Arlington was not a supporter of absolute monarchs …Mr
Arlington told me (Ruvigny) that the (French) King supported absolute
monarchy and that it was necessary to cut the wings of people who wanted
to fly too high...
The English Court certainly had some involvement with Roux. Edmund
Ludlow an English Regicide living in Switzerland, mentions in his
memoirs that Roux carried a letter from the Bishop of London to ask the
Swiss Cantons to stop providing protection to the English Regicides living
nd nd
in their territories. It is also known that and on the 22 June/2 July 1668,
Lord Arlington issued a “pass port” …to Monsieur de (Roux de) Marcilly
two horses and a guide to go to any port in England as well as a pass for a
voyage beyond the seas and return... Roux was clearly travelling to the
Continent on some quasi-official business for the English Government and
intended to return to England at some later date.
In late July 1668, a troubled Morland wrote to Ruvigny. He was
concerned that his spying activities for the French Court might be
discovered in England. He reminded Ruvigny of all the good services that
he had provided, not least the role he had played in exposing Roux and
gathering intelligence about him. Once again, Morland left the French
Court in no doubt that the English were still actively intercepting and
decoding diplomatic correspondence from France and further that they had
even cracked Ruvigny’s code! …Roux is an evil Frenchman who says
things so strange and above all against the King (Louis XIV) that causes
horror. He hopes for things that make one’s hair stand on end…Roux is
imprudent he speaks too freely for a man who has evil intentions and who
knows others who bear the same view…I dare not commit myself, because
if I was discovered, I would be ruined, it is the reason why I have never
dared to write by the post as I would have given you this information,
sooner. One of my friends travelling to Paris is charged with this letter
without knowing what it contains and which is under another envelope,
otherwise I would not have written...I know that the Post Office often
opens letters that go to France and that even the code that Monsieur de
Ruvigny used has already been discovered…
Louis XIV now ordered that Roux was to be captured and Monsieur de
la Bourlie, the Governor of Sedan and Monsieur Paleseau, the Governor of
Charleville were instructed to arrest Roux on sight en-route to Switzerland.
However, by early August 1668, Roux arrived safely in Zurich, blissfully
unaware that he was the prey of a major manhunt.
th
However, Roux’s arrival did not go unnoticed. On the 10 August,
Monsieur Mouslier, the French Resident in Switzerland mentioned in a
routine report to the French Court that a person, recently arrived in Zurich,
dressed in the French style, had been sent there from England to negotiate
an alliance with the Swiss ...One has advised me that there is at Zurich a
man dressed in the French manner who is believed to be from England to
propose an alliance with the Protestant cantons who are obliged to meet
about now in a stated place. In the time of Cromwell, a similar proposition
was made which was not followed through…. A week later, Mouslier wrote
again to the French Court …The person I informed you about who
appeared in Zurich who is believed to be from England has not had an
audience and has not yet produced any letter of credence. I await news this
evening as to what his journey will have achieved...
On receiving Mouslier’s letters, Lionne the French Foreign Minister,
suspected that the man in question was Roux and instructed Mouslier to
despatch an agent to Zurich to obtain more information on the newly
arrived stranger. Lionne emphasised that the matter must be done in total
secrecy ...It is extremely important to the King to know who is this man,
who dressed in the French manner is at Zurich and it is believed, will
propose an alliance on behalf of the King of Great Britain. His Majesty
(Louis XIV) desires that you send secretly an intelligent and loyal person
who will report all news and the maximum of detail that he can, not so
much on the negotiations, albeit to the better of being able to penetrate into
them further, but rather, the mannerisms of the negotiator, what name he
uses, if he is English or French, if he appears in public or if he hides
himself, of what stature, of what hair and in all anything that concerns this
person. I am confident that you will find easily several pretexts to achieve
this.
P.S. advise your envoy to take careful note whether the English negotiator
is not a man who… (here follows a description of Roux that Ruvigny had
sent to the French Court from London in May 1668). The letter ended …It
is important for the King to know if it is indeed Roux who is in Zurich, as
he ought to be going there, but not just yet according to our intelligence. It
is important for all that this is kept a great secret...
In late August 1668, before the spy arrived, Roux left Zurich and
travelled to Berne to seek an audience with the Councillors of that Canton.
Roux’s promoter there was Senator Colonel Gabriel Weiss who Roux had
become acquainted with during the Waldensian troubles. Before presenting
any proposals from England, Roux requested that the Council first remove
the protection that they had granted to the English Regicides sheltering in
their Canton.
By early September, Mouslier’s spy reported back that the mysterious
Frenchman was indeed Roux and that he carried a letter of introduction
from an English Minister of State (likely Lord Arlington). Mouslier
informed the French Court …the three persons that Colonel Balthazar
made known to me are...a Frenchman who changes name often who claims
to be an envoy from England. The other is Borrey, the high provost of
Franche-Comté and the third, is Chandiot, a nephew of Baron de Lisola
and Intendant of the Abbey of St Claude, who is acting for Don Juan of
Austria...The one who claims to be an envoy from England has letters
from a Minister of State of the King of England for his recommendation
which he uses to persuade the people of Zurich of the proposals he brings
to them…The agent that I sent to Zurich reports…that there is no doubt that
this man is the one who is apparently now at St Claude and that it is the
Spanish who support him…His stature is tall rather than little, a full face,
he looks older than fifty years because his hair begins to grey. He is dressed
in a woollen cloth, quite modestly and followed by two footmen in poor
enough order. His religion is Protestant and it is believed that he is from
Montpellier and that he is called Roux… In Zurich they listened to his
proposals with pleasure and would have supported an alliance with
England if he had some standing or power from the King of England, but
having neither, which was necessary before proposing the business in
public to approve it. On which, the envoy (Roux) withdrew letting one
believe that he would return shortly with the orders that they desired….
Mouslier also received information about Roux from a certain Colonel
Balthazar who resided near Geneva. It is notable that Roux informed
Morland that a Colonel Balthazar in Switzerland was a member of the
secret “Committee of Ten”. However, Balthazar was clearly acting in the
interests of the French Court and was possibly a double-agent.
In September, Mouslier sent new intelligence to the French Court.
Roux’s expenses were being paid by the government of the Franche-Comté
that Louis XIV had recently occupied in early 1668 and which would soon
be ceded back to the Spanish as part of a recent peace treaty. Further that
the Berne and Zurich Cantons were also willing to enter into negotiations
with England but, could not do so because Roux did not carry a letter of
authority from the English King.
Now armed with the latest intelligence, Louis XIV set in motion a plan
for Roux’s abduction. Orders were issued to Sire de la Grange an officer of
the King’s Bodyguard, to take a troop of soldiers and abduct Roux,
preferably in the Franche-Comté, promising La Grange a substantial reward
if he was successful ...The King believing it most important to his well-
being and for other reasons known to his Majesty, for the person known as
Roux, a subject of the King, to be apprehended in any place that he may
be encountered, be it within or outside of the Kingdom…To this effect His
Majesty orders Sire de la Grange exempt of the (King’s) Ordinary Guards,
accompanied by twelve of the said Guards to undertake the said capture…
His Majesty relies on his (la Grange’s) prudence and discretion, pointing
out only that once the task is achieved his Majesty would acknowledge to
him a most particular pleasure for this important service, however the
King does not desire that he attempt the abduction if he does not see much
hope of its good success...
However, by the time the snatch squad arrived in the Franche-Comté,
Roux had left Switzerland and was on his way back to England, blissfully
unaware still that he was the prey of a Europe-wide manhunt!

6
Chapter 5 - Sinister

Chapter 5
Sinister

Whilst the French Court searched for Roux in August 1668 and Charles
II proposed his Grand Design to Louis XIV through his sister Madame, he
also wrote to Pere Oliva, the Father General of the Jesuits in Rome asking
for James de la Cloche, a Novitiate at the Jesuit Seminary, to travel to
London and assist Charles II secretly undertake his religious conversion to
the Catholic faith.
La Cloche enrolled in the Jesuit Seminary in April1668, having
presented documents which revealed that he was the eldest natural son of
th th
Charles II. Many 19 and 20 century historians believed that La Cloche
was a hoaxer who duped the Father General however, recent discoveries in
the Jesuit and other Vatican archives have resulted in a rehabilitation of
James De La Cloche. Previous histories of James de La Cloche do not
include these recent discoveries.
An updated concise history of James de La Cloche prior to his
enrolment as a Novitiate in the Jesuit Seminary in Rome is provided in the
Annexe. In brief, La Cloche’s parents were Charles II and Mary Villiers,
nd
Duchess of Richmond, eldest sister of the 2 Duke of Buckingham. La
Cloche was raised in France until Charles II recalled him to England on his
coming of age in 1665. He left England in 1667 and in Hamburg he
undertook his conversion and became a Roman Catholic. He then moved to
Rome and was accepted into the Jesuit Seminary in April 1668.
Charles II wrote to the Father General of the Jesuits and La Cloche at
the beginning of August 1668. Allowing the normal 20 days travel time
between London and Rome, the letters would not have arrived earlier than
th rd
the 24 August/3 September 1668 (if the letters are dated old style) or the
th th
14 August/24 August 1668 (if dated new style).
It is notable that these two letters are written at the same time that
Charles II was corresponding with his sister, Madame about the Grand
Design. In the two letters Charles II reveals his plans to undertake his
personal religious conversion and askes the Father General of the Jesuits to
allow La Cloche to secretly travel to England and assist him in his
endeavour. As the letters are verbose, they are summarised below.
Charles II to the Father General of the Jesuits,
Charles hopes that the Father General is discrete. Charles writes in
French to conceal the contents from prying English eyes which must be
kept a secret.
The Father General will know that some years ago Charles searched
for someone trustful in his kingdom to assist in his salvation and reveal that
he was a Catholic, without causing umbrage at Court. Charles is unable to
use the Priests at the Royal Catholic chapels of Saint James and Somerset
House as they are known to the Court in London. But, providence has given
Charles a Catholic son in whom he can confide. Although there are better
persons, Charles cannot use them and needs his son to administer the
Sacraments of Confession and Communion which Charles desires to
receive as soon as possible.
Charles’s son is Sire de La Cloche who is with the Jesuits, he was born
when Charles was barely sixteen of seventeen. His excellent nature and
learning was acquired with Charles’s aid and his admirable rank in the
Catholic Church achieved through his wisdom, reasoning and study.
Several reasons have prevented Charles publicly recognising his son,
but this would only be only for a little longer, having nevertheless in 1665
provided all the necessary assurances to him should Charles die. His son is
unknown to others apart from the Queens, this matter is a great secret,
Charles could safely converse with La Cloche and practice the Catholic
religion in secret without revealing to anyone at Court that Charles is a
Catholic. La Cloche was born in Charles’s tender youth against the orders
of god, the same god who wants to use him now for Charles salvation.
The Father General is only to write to Charles via La Cloche, accidents
might occur, as when a letter from Rome although delivered correctly by a
non-Catholic, nevertheless caused Charles to be suspected of intelligence
with the Pope. Charles had to quell suspicions that he was Catholic and
was obliged to consent to things disadvantageous to the Catholics in
Ireland. This was when Charles wrote secretly to the Pope to promote his
cousin Ludovic Aubigny to cardinal which was refused for good reasons
and Charles was unable to follow up this matter.
The Queen of Sweden is prudent and wise, but she cannot keep a secret
and as she believes she is the only one who knows the secret about La
Cloche, Charles has written to her to confirm this is so, but if she questions
the Father General, he must inform her that he has no idea about the birth
of La Cloche.
The Father General must not reveal to anyone Charles’s plan to become
a Catholic or that he will bring over his son for this purpose. If the Queen
of Sweden asks where La Cloche has gone The Father General is to find
some pretext, say that he has gone on a mission to Jersey or some other
part of the kingdom, or any other pretext, until Charles advises the Father
General again on the matter.
The Father General is asked to send La Cloche over as soon as possible
during the first good weather of this season or next. Charles had thought to
write to the Pope to reveal his plan and ask him to send over his son, but
Charles thought instead to ask the Father General, reserving to another
occasion to declare himself to the Pope by secret courier.
If La Cloche is not yet a Priest then this is to be done without making
his name and birth publicly known, Charles not knowing the Jesuits
customs, as to whether La Cloche cannot be made a Priest in Rome, but if
not La Cloche is to go to Paris and present himself to Charles’s cousin the
King of France or Charles’s Sister Madame, to whom he is to reveal
Charles’s wishes in total safety. They know what Charles desires and will
know La Cloche from the recognition that Charles gave him in London in
1665 and they will find a way to have him secretly made a Priest.
Or if La Cloche prefers to come to London without being made a Priest
this might even be best, since Charles could do the same through his
mother the Dowager Queen or the reigning Queen who have Bishops. at
their disposal who can do it secretly.
The intention is not to withdraw La Cloche from the Jesuits. Charles is
pleased that he remains one all his life after putting in order Charles’s
conscience, he would not prevent him from returning to Rome or would not
prevent him from remaining if he wants to live amongst the Jesuit Society in
the Kingdom, but not in London but in a town nearby in order he can come
quickly and easily to Charles.
Charles desires to be absolved by La Cloche of heresy and reconciled
with God and the church after which he is to return to Rome and wait new
orders from Charles and believes that the Father General would be of the
same opinion. Although Charles cannot openly show the affection and good
wishes for the Jesuits, this does not prevent the Father General from
informing Charles through his son if there is any way to aid them which he
would do willingly, knowing that all contributions would be employed in
God’s service for the remission of Charles’s sins. In the meantime,
recommending The Father General to pray for both Charles and his
kingdom.
Whitehall 3rd August 1668, Charles, King of England

th
The next letter from Charles II is dated the 4 August 1668 and is
addressed to La Cloche.
…For our most honoured son Prince Stuart residing with the Jesuit
fathers in Rome under the name La Cloche,
Charles has written to the Father General who will advise you on the
King’s wishes. The Queen of Sweden has requested as a loan, the money
that Charles sent her which was destined for La Cloche’s upkeep over
several years. Charles has dealt with this matter and La Cloche is no
longer to correspond or talk with the Queen. She is in need of money and
her visit to Sweden was to increase the income from her estates.
If autumn is too bad a season for you to come to Charles without risk of
illness, then La Cloche can come in spring, he is to stay healthy and not
write to Charles as there are some who suspect that Charles is a Catholic.
The Queens (Charles II’s mother and Charles II’s wife) are anxious to see
La Cloche, Charles has advised them of La Cloche’s conversion. The
Queens will not prevent La Cloche from living amongst the Jesuits and are
content even if this is permanent. La Cloche is to look after his health as he
is weak and delicate.
One can be a good Catholic without being a Priest, Charles had plans
to publicly recognise La Cloche as his son in a few years but Parliament
and affairs having prevented this. La Cloche could claim titles from
Charles similar to that of the Duke of Monmouth and perhaps even greater.
Charles has no children by the Queen and those of the Duke of York are
very weak, but by the quality of La Cloche’s mother, he could be preferred
above the Duke of Monmouth. Being young and if the Catholic Religion
returns he could have some hope for the crown if Charles and the Duke of
York die without children the Kingdom will belong to La Cloche,
Parliament could only oppose this on grounds that religious freedom is not
yet established and presently only Protestants can be elected as King.
This is what the Queens have advised to inform you. But if La Cloche
prefers to serve god within the Jesuits Charles would not resist this. There
are no false claims in this as to La Cloche’s inheritance rights. Royal
bastards have acceded to throne in other reigns.
Charles has not spoken to the Pope (and will not) until he has spoken
with La Cloche. He had written to the late Pope to have his cousin Aubigny
made Cardinal (in 1663) but did not receive satisfaction, but Charles does
not blame anyone, Charles has written to the Queen of Sweden asked her
not to write to La Cloche anymore and to treat him as a simple cavalier,
without knowledge of his birth.
It is sad to see La Cloche living without recognition, but to be patient
because in a few years Charles will make it such that everybody will know
who he is and live in the freedom and enjoyment of a person of high birth,
even if God inspires La Cloche and he wants to continue to live the
religious life that he has embraced.
Although Charles cannot openly show support for the Jesuits, whilst
waiting until such time that he can show them royal favour, if there is some
way or means that Charles can make a contribution, this would be done,
even more so as it is known that it will be used in the service of God and
the remission of Charles’s sins, also given a person of La Cloche’s birth,
something should be founded in memory of this. This will be discussed in
London if La Cloche persists in his desire to live amongst the Jesuits.
Charles has always had great affection for La Cloche, he was born
during Charles’s tender youth when hardly sixteen or seventeen years old,
in particular his excellent spirit and excellent studies and by Charles’s help
he has advanced himself, has always been an honest man, obeyed Charles’s
orders, Charles is unable to secretly send money to Rome to put him in a
position to appear before Charles, not wanting to reveal that Charles is in
contact with Rome. It is not possible for La Cloche to attend the English
Court in his true quality and so when he arrives in England this would be
as a simple cavalier.
Pray to god for Charles, the Queens and the Kingdoms, I am your
affectionate father.
Charles, King of England, France, Scotland and Ireland,
Wthall, this 4th August 1668

Less than a month later 1668, Charles II wrote two more letters to the
Father General giving further instructions as to how La Cloche would
travel to England.

Charles to General of the Jesuits

Charles secretly sends an express (courier) to Rome with two letters,
one for the reverend father, in order that La Cloche departs as soon as
possible, the other for the Queen of Sweden having commanded the
messenger to wait on her in a town in Italy where she will pass, not
wanting the messenger to be seen in the Reverend’s institution through fear
of being recognised by one of the religious members who might be English.
The messenger being a person of quality we have forbidden him likewise to
remain more than one day in Rome through fear of being known by some
English who might be there.
Charles advises the Reverend father that since first writing, he has
received news that the Queen of Sweden is to return to Rome, contrary to
what he had believed, which has caused embarrassment in the matter of
Charles’s (religious) salvation, which is why having taken counsel with the
Queens, Charles has decided to write quickly to the Queen of Sweden to
conceal and make her believe that La Cloche wanted to have assigned to
him something stable during his life in case he cannot continue his
religious life and being Catholic, has something to fall back on in order to
live, and that even if he may continue this religious life, that he requested
from Charles some wealth to be able to dispose of according to his
devotion, which Charles has granted, but not being able to do this in Rome,
La Cloche has been ordered to leave for Paris to meet an agent of Charles
and then (travel) from there to Jersey and to (South)Hampton where he will
receive 40 or 50 thousand pounds in order to bequeath it or to place in a
bank. And (to inform her) that Charles has ordered La Cloche to say
nothing to the reverend father about his birth and convince the reverend
father that he is the son of a rich Minister of Religion, who being dead
some time, his mother is driven to make herself a Catholic and having a
son, has written to him and that the reverend father wishing for the
salvation of her soul and having her made Catholic willingly allowed him
to leave. This is what Charles has ordered so that the Queen of Sweden will
continue to believe that she alone knows the secret of La Cloche and will
not have any need to break her friendship towards him, and this will
remedy any suspicion that she might have that Charles is making La
Cloche come to him to make him a Catholic. But above all it is necessary
that La Cloche does not wait for the Queen of Sweden and that he leaves as
soon as possible, because she is in need of money, so much so that she has
requested a loan of 35,000 Ecus from the Swedish Diet, and that she would
embarrass him if this theatre failed. This is what Charles has ordered
regarding the Queen of Sweden.
The reverend father will not be surprised that Charles fears the ills that
afflict him and he will know that the highest borne bear the most
dangerous. It is not in dispute that of all the earthly ills, proof that Charles
is a Catholic is the greatest since undoubtedly this would cause his death as
well as creating untold troubles in his Kingdom.
The reverend father must not be surprised that Charles takes so many
precautions and if Charles deemed it appropriate to write this second
(letter), as much about the matter of the Queen of Sweden as supplementing
omissions from Charles first (letter) and to withdraw some of the earlier
points:
La Cloche is not to present himself to the King of France, nor to
Charles’s sister the Duchess of Orleans before speaking to Charles, that he
only comes to Charles via France, Paris or other ways that it would please
the Reverend father to determine.
La Cloche is to refrain during the voyage from writing to the Queen of
Sweden for fear that she sees through the subterfuge described above. This
is what Charles has decided upon together with the Queens, for fear that
the business will be revealed or some accident will occur.
Furthermore, Charles asks the reverend father, albeit that the French
King, the Queen and Charles’s sister the Duchess of Orleans secretly know
of Charles’s long-held desire to become a Catholic, that he refrains from
writing by any manner on this very secret matter until god’s providence has
otherwise intervened.
Charles wishes that with all due prudence for a business of such great
consequence, for himself and the peace in his Kingdom to facilitate in all
possible ways for La Cloche to achieve Charles’s salvation and avoid any
difficulties that might present themselves in England,
Charles’s has taken advice from the Queens that when La Cloche
arrives alone and unknown in London, as is Charles’s desire and wish, that
La Cloche takes his time to recover and dress as is necessary having
travelled in bad weather and muddy roads that might ruin a coach and all
those inside. Then being in good order and posture, he is to present himself
to our Queen Consort (Catherine de Braganza), either when she is at mass
in St James Palace or when she goes to visit the queen our dear and
honoured mother, her majesty will do all that is necessary to present him
before Charles with all possible prudence when Charles can be assured
that there will be no disorder or suspicion.
La Cloche has nothing to do other than to let him be led according to
where he is guided and he is asked to observe diligently all that has been
written particularly what has been put in the letter.
Charles’s renews his request to the reverend father as he made in the
first (letter) of not writing to him or responding other than by La Cloche
who is commanded to leave Rome as soon as possible not wanting the
Queen of Sweden to speak to him for the reasons given above. Having left
Rome he will take the most convenient route to come to Charles.
If it is necessary to motivate La Cloche to come as soon as possible,
explain to him the need that Charles has of him. Charles knows that La
Cloche has some distaste for England which is due to not having been
raised there and being constrained to live there unknown and having only
stayed there one year and before the year had finished La Cloche gave
various reasons for which Charles was obliged to let him go to Holland
where he carried himself with great praise and satisfaction for literature
and studies in which he is well advanced. Charles believes that La Cloche
has good judgement not to fail to obey and come to Charles.
As soon as he arrives Charles will arrange via the Queens to have him
secretly made a Priest and if there is something that a plain bishop cannot
do without permission of his Holiness, then he will not fail to procure it
secretly in such a manner that no one will know of it, which will be done if
possible before leaving Rome.
The reverend father is asked to pray to god for the Queens, the kingdom
and Charles, king of England,
Wthall 29th August 1668

The second letter (undated) is a continuation of the preceding letter.

Reverend father,
Charles has never been so embarrassed than at present when thinking
of his salvation. No sooner had Charles sealed the other letter which
should be read before this letter which is open, to better understand his
intentions and the order in which they are written.
The Queens have warned Charles not to be hasty and send the first
letter because they wanted to add certain important and necessary
precautions in order that the arrival of La Cloche in England is achieved
secretly and prudently. To this effect their Majesties having found the
means of quickly knowing and prudently the practice of the Jesuit
community regarding new entrants, they advise as follows;
Novices and others are never sent out alone without another member to
accompany them, as much to know their actions and behaviour and report
to their superior, which is admired as a holy and prudent measure that can
only come from a divine spirit of such a wary holy society. However,
Charles requests that the reverend father dispenses with this requirement
for La Cloche because he has been instructed by virtue of the power that
god have given over him, to come alone to meet Charles, furthermore so it
agrees with the letter that has been sent to the Queen of Sweden who must
believe that he departed alone, i.e. without the company of another
religious companion but mainly because of the dangerous disadvantages to
which Charles would be continually in fear if he (La Cloche) arrived in
company of a Jesuit.
Charles has already communicated secretly with trusted persons in
most of the ports of England and by other secret means that a foreign
noble, of such size and description seeks refuge, and others that cannot be
explained to the reverend father as this would take too long, Charles has
done this, partly, in order that if La Cloche is suspected in any way of being
too well known, Charles has what is necessary to remove any suspicion.
The reverend father will realise that if La Cloche is seen with an Italian
who is recognised by his accent, language or other means this could
overturn all these plans for achieving Charles’s just wishes. Furthermore,
even if he might have another with him who is not Italian Charles forbids
him from passing over to England regardless of nationality for reasons too
important and long to explain.
The reverend father should not be surprised that we are so cautious,
since Charles has learned during the time of Cromwell the misery and the
ways of this world, the value of being cautious and to conceal things in
order to succeed in an undertaking.
Charles knows that although La Cloche is young, he does not enjoy
company or talking with people and that he does not wish to have contact
with anyone by letter or conversation, knowing that he does not like the
English court.
But he needs to be patient, more so that it is not unreasonable that for
the pleasure of something of little consequence and duration that La Cloche
puts himself in danger of ruining Charles’s plans.
As soon as La Cloche sets foot in the Palace he is not to have
conversation with anyone other than Charles and the Queens who will give
the necessary orders on this matter, neither to write to anyone but the
reverend father and Charles will send these letters by an Express in secret
to Rome in order that the reverend father can provide succour for the soul.
Charles has enquired about seaports near Rome. Amongst several he is
reminded of Civita-Vechia and Genoa. Charles instructs La Cloche to go to
Genoa where the Jesuit Society have a house. He is to find an English
vessel without the help of the Jesuit Society for important reasons, the
Master and crew might reveal all at the port of entry. La Cloche is to leave
his religious clothes at the Society’s house in Genoa. He can redress himself
at the same place on his return to Rome when he returns to continue the
religious life he has embraced.
He will land in Charles’s Kingdom alone and unknown and will call
himself wherever he goes, Henry de Rohan which is the family name of a
certain French Calvinist prince, intimately known to Charles.
Charles is fearful that some accident may occur and is secretly
informing himself on the vessels that have left and will return to England,
Whilst he is in England, he amongst people, who under the pretext of
zeal and for the good of the Kingdom, maintain the protestant faith, to
which Charles pretends more than ever albeit that before God who knows
what is in the heart, he finds it abhorrent and pernicious.
Charles forbids La Cloche to travel (overland) through France and
other places or ports of that area, so not to unknowingly jeopardise
relations there. Hence Charles has not found a more appropriate point of
embarkation than Genoa.
While waiting for La Cloche’s return to Rome, the reverend father is to
spread the rumour that La Cloche has gone to Jersey or Southampton to
see his alleged mother who wants to become a Catholic as indicated in the
previous letter, and that to arrive there quickly, he went by sea.
This is what Charles has commanded, by the God-given authority
Charles has over La Cloche and by authority of a King,
Nothing more is expected on his arrival than the salvation of Charles’s
soul, La Cloche’s well-being and that of the (Jesuit) institute that he has
embraced and which sooner than later Charles will find the means to
notably favour with royal munificence and far from preventing La Cloche
from continuing with his vocation, both as a catholic and as part of the
Jesuit Society, Charles and the Queens will preach to him more than would
any spiritual director.
When time and affairs allow, Charles will write to the Pope and let him
know of the obedience owed to him as vicar of Christ, hoping that he would
have so much kindness for Charles not to refuse him a Cardinal’s hat,
although the conditions that might prevent this dignity for honouring his
subjects and kingdom are not to be found in La Cloche, i.e. to remain in
England, since Charles could send him to stay in Rome as claimed with the
royal munificence suited to his birth.
However, if in time he prefers to live in the religious order he has
embraced, Charles would simply abandon what could be an honour for him
and the kingdom rather than purchase such titles against his wish.
Charles has discretely enquired of his doctor if sea sickness can cause
serious accidents to those of a weak disposition. They have assured that it
has never killed anybody, and on the contrary is a means to be more
healthy. However if there is too much difficulty to come directly La Cloche
will try to arrange for a ship in which he travels to stop from time to time in
some port.
He could of course come directly to London but this is not desired for
various reasons, such that he will land in another port in England from
where he will take a coach by land to London.
Charles repeats his request that the reverend father does not write or
make any other response other than by La Cloche. If La Cloche is need of
anything for his voyage to London Charles requests the reverend father to
take particular care to provide it and to keep an account of it.
Charles strongly believes that it is God that inspires him in all the
various ways stated above for La Cloche to come to him in secret, as was
the word (of God) that when two or three assemble in his name, he will be
amongst them. This is how in fact the Queen-Mother and the reigning
Queen judge everything to be, not without having invoked beforehand the
help of the holy spirit.
The Queens have ordered their Priests to say a number of masses so
that this affair succeeds as well as all the projects mentioned above work to
the good of Charles, the Roman Catholic Church and the Kingdom.
Charles King of England

Charles II’s letters to the Father General refer to the secret negotiations
with Rome in 1663/4 for Charles II’s religious conversion. However, the
“Hoax Theorists” claim that La Cloche simply discovered details of the
1663 stalled negotiations after joining the Jesuit Seminary, but this ignores
the fact that if La Cloche (a hoaxer) was unaware of this fact prior to
joining the Jesuits, then he must have already planned some other equally
sophisticated hoax requiring the forging of four royal certificates (birth,
passport, baptism and religious conversion) and claiming to be Charles II’s
eldest natural son.

It is equally notable that in his letters Charles II informed the Father

General that Louis XIV and Madame were aware of Charles II’s desire to
become a Catholic. Indeed, that very same month Charles II informed
Madame and Louis XIV about his Grand Design and even sent a special
courier (de Chapelles) with fuller details. Clearly author of the four letters
to the Jesuits was privy to several intimate royal secrets.
In October 1668 La Cloche left Rome accompanied by the Father
General of the Jesuits and travelled to the port of Livorno (Leghorn),
th th
arriving there on or before the 4 /14 October 1668. This is evidenced by a
draft letter (in Italian) held at the Jesuit Archive, written by the Father
General to Charles II in which he confirmed that he had dutifully followed
the King’s instructions. From the content of the letter, it is evident that the
Father General believed La Cloche was everything that he claimed to be.
Until now it was assumed that La Cloche sailed from Livorno
th th
(Leghorn) on or shortly before the 4 /14 October1668. However, there is
an overlooked letter held in the Jesuit Archive, in La Cloche’s hand
addressed to the Father General. The letter is in Latin and dated Livorno,
th th
the 9 /19 October, La Cloche advises the Father General that he is about
to set sail. Thus, La Cloche was in Livorno several days later than was
previously thought.
Nothing about La Cloche’s journey to London is known. Presumably he
travelled as instructed under the prearranged alias of Henri de Rohan and
likely sailed from via Marseilles (this route is mentioned in subsequent
correspondence in respect of La Cloche’s second journey from Rome to
London). After arriving in Marseilles, the shortest and most convenient
route to England was overland to Bordeaux and from there by wine boat to
London. La Cloche arrived in November 1668 the same month that Roux
returned to London. After meeting Charles II, he volunteered to return
immediately to Rome with a secret commission from Charles II to the
Father General of the Jesuits.
th
Charles II to the General of the Jesuits, November 18 , 1668.
Reverend Father, the position to which you have been elevated through
merit, coupled with our need for your help through the sadness of our birth,
causes us to importune you. Our most dear and honoured son will inform
you on our behalf about our affairs and how we were troubled as to who we
might send immediately to you regarding our business, and he insisted on
returning to you which we have granted on the condition that he returns to
London as soon as he has had an audience with you and obtained the
things that we ask which our most dear and honoured son will explain to
you on our behalf by word of mouth, bringing to us when returning via
France the reverend father that he has left there.
At the request of our most dear and honoured son who has explained to
us the place where he has been received amongst you is incommoded with
debt and has need of some buildings and other things, we have arranged
that your institution where he has been received might receive from us as
soon as possible for the expiation of our sins awaiting if you would please
advise us of the means you will take with us to receive this which will be
within a year. If you write to us, it will be by our most dear and honoured
son who will tell you all our intentions that we do not put to paper.
th
We are Charles, King of England, Whitehall, 18 November 1668
PS If it happens that our most dear and honoured son has need of
anything whatever it may be, we beseech you to take care of it and keeping
a full account of it

th th
It is known that La Cloche never left Leghhorn until the 9 /19 October
1668 or shortly after and allowing the typical 20 days travel time from
Leghorn to London (via Marseille and Bordeaux) and assuming fair sea
conditions La Cloche would have arrived in London on or shortly after the
th th
29 October/9 November 1668.
th
Charles II’s letter dated 18 November 1668, must be dated new style,
th th
i.e. The 8 /18 November 1668. The new style dating of this letter is
confirmed by two letters written by La Cloche in April 1669 in which he
states that he returned to Rome during the first days of December (see
later). Calculating backwards and allowing the minimum 20 days travel
time between London and Rome, this confirms that Charles II’s letter could
only be dated new style. However, this dating is contrary to Charles II’s
normal custom of dating his letters old style.
Yet even here there is an explanation as to why Charles II exceptionally
used the new style date on this particular letter. Attached to the letter was a
th
bill also dated 18 November 1668, promising to pay to the Jesuits 6
months after this date a donation of £20,000 plus £800 expenses. Charles II
would reasonably have used the continental dating system on these
documents to ensure that the debt fell due a full six calendar months later.
Pagnol identified a mathematical discrepancy in this promissory note.
The total amount stated is £28,000, however the individual amounts only
add up to £20,800. Even Pagnol’s imaginative and conspiratorial mind
could not offer any explanation for this error. The original document in the
Jesuit Archive is missing (there is only a copy of the promissory note) so it
is possible that the error was made in the transcription.
After arriving in Rome in the early part of December 1668 and
obtaining the Father General’s reply, La Cloche, had been instructed to
return to Charles II in London collecting en-route, a Priest that he had left
behind in France on his first journey. However, before returning to London,
La Cloche would undergo his “Neapolitan Adventure” which delayed him
leaving for England until June 1669, just a few weeks before the arrest in
Calais of Eustache Danger, the Man in the Iron Mask.

6
Chapter 6 – Croissy

Chapter 6
Croissy

In early Summer 1668, After Ruvigny left England and returned to the
French Court, Croissy was named as Louis XIV’s new Ambassador to the
English Court. Croissy was a younger brother of Jean-Baptiste Colbert,
Louis XIV’s French Minister of Finances. Like his elder brother, Croissy
was in the ascendancy, having recently negotiated the Treaty of Aixe-la-
Chapelle which ended the War of Devolution between France and the
Spanish-Netherlands.
th
Croissy arrived in London on the 17 August 1668. Whilst his principal
task was to foster a good union between England and France, Croissy was
also instructed to make early contact with Morland who might have new
intelligence about Roux’s whereabouts. Within two days of his arrival
Croissy reported to Louis XIV …I have not yet seen Morland, from whom I
am anxious to have news...
Morland was reluctant to make contact with the new French
Ambassador and instead wrote directly to Ruvigny, in France. Some days
later Lionne, the French Foreign Secretary informed Croissy ...Our man of
secrets (Morland) informs his correspondent here (Ruvigny) that the King
of England has found out about their meetings and closely questioned him
about them. Great offence has been taken and he fears there will be
repercussions. He suspects that one of his servants has betrayed him and so
you (Croissy) must not press him (Morland) in any way to make him talk in
such circumstances, but to wait, being reassured that hopefully he will
come to you by some means that he will devise. Ruvigny will ask him to try
and give you news on the villain (Roux) who should be going to
Switzerland...
Morland could not risk being seen talking to Croissy, even in public
places, such as at meetings of the Royal Society. Sir Joseph Williamson
(Lord Arlington’s under-secretary) was also a member and would have
been most suspicious if he now saw Morland in discussion with the new
French Ambassador.
Morland broke silence once again in September 1668, informing
Ruvigny that he had no idea where Roux might be found …Roux has only
written two letters to me since his departure, he used the code in such a
way that I swear before god of not understanding a single word, of which
one is most surprised. My belief is that he has been to Brussels and
Switzerland, but where he is at present god only knows...As for my news, in
a few words my plans remain blocked, my wife has taken upon her a
sadness so strong that she is dead or ready to die, I beseech you to be
discrete about me because I have taken on a meagre job in the business of
Ireland because somebody else could not do it... That same month,
Morland’s wife, a French national, applied to the English government for a
pass to leave England and return to France. It is thus possible that Morland
had sold out to the French in return for a pension for his ailing wife. In
October, Lionne informed Croissy that Morland had gone to ground …I am
not surprised that the other man (Morland) does not see you at all, he
knows that they are intercepting letters in England and that he does not
have faith in the security of your code. He does not want to risk anything
and has not even written to his correspondent (Ruvigny)...
At this time, Charles II set about implementing his Grand Design for
the religious conversion of his kingdoms. He instructed Buckingham and
Arlington to make overtures to the French Court via Croissy. Arlington was
to advance a commercial treaty with France, a pre-requisite to any secret
negotiations, whilst Buckingham was to promote an Anglo-French alliance
against the Dutch. The French Court instructed Croissy to encourage
Arlington and Buckingham’s advances. Neither Croissy or Buckingham
were aware of the religious elements of the Grand Design. George Villiers,
the second Duke of Buckingham had no formal ministerial position being
regarded by many at the English Court to be an unreliable hothead.
Following the assassination of his father, the first duke, of Buckingham,
together with his sister Mary (La Cloche’s mother) and a younger brother
(who later died during the Civil War) were raised by King Charles I.
Buckingham was educated alongside Charles II. Whilst Buckingham’s
influence over Charles II would wax and wane over the decades, in 1668/9
he was considered to be one of the most influential men in England.
Buckingham attempted to induce the French Court to allow Madame to
travel from France to England. Croissy informed Lionne, the French
Foreign Secretary …Monsieur de Flamarens took me to one side and said
that if only the King (of France) would permit Madame to come for a short
visit to this country, which was what she desired, as much for re-
establishing good relations between her brothers (Charles II and the Duke
of York)…as forwarding strong ties with France...Albeit that this proposal
did not merit a reply, nevertheless I perceived from several things that Sire
de Flamarens said, that this could only come via the Duke of
Buckingham…
The same month Sir Ellis Leighton, Buckingham’s secretary and
confidant travelled to the French Court on business. He also delivered a
letter From Charles II to Madame. Leighton returned to London in
December with an encouraging reply ...He that came last (Leighton) and
delivered me your letter of the 9th has given me a full account of what he
was charged with, and I am very pleased with what he tells me … At this
point Charles II decided that a cipher code must be used from now on in all
correspondence with Madame to ensure that the Grand Design remained a
closely guarded secret …I will send you a cipher by the first safe occasion,
and you shall then know the way I think most proper to proceed in the
whole matter which I hope will not displease you. I will say no more by
the post upon the business, for you know it is not very sure. I do intend to
prorogue the Parliament until October next, before which time I shall have
set my affairs in that posture as there will not be so many miscarriages to
be hunted after as in the last sessions…
In November 1668, quite unknown to the French Court or Croissy,
Roux was back in London. Roux sent Martin, his valet, to collect mail from
Sir Joseph Williamson (Lord Arlington’s under-secretary) Martin gave
Williamson a note in which Roux complained that some of his letters had
been opened, but nevertheless thanked Williamson for the valuable
assistance that he had previously provided and sought further help. In
January, Roux thanked Arlington for intervening in his friend’s court case...
It appears that Arlington used Roux to encourage the Swiss to enter the
Triple Alliance against the French and remove the protection they had
given to the English Regicides who had signed Charles I’s death warrant.
Arlington was also aware that Roux was actively planning a revolt in
France as evidenced by a detailed report that Roux submitted to Lord
Arlington on the readiness of certain French provinces who were willing to
participate in the planned uprising against Louis XIV. Roux ended this
report with a request for the English to send him back to Switzerland as
their official envoy to represent the interests of Charles II at the next Diet
(assembly) of the Swiss Cantons to be held in Gavand. Roux argued that
his presence was necessary so that the Protestant Cantons would not feel
intimidated by the catholic emissaries attending from France, the Papal
States and the Dukedom of Savoie. Roux provided a sample letter of
credence for Charles II to sign and Arlington was requested to provide a
letter addressed to Colonel Balthazar thanking him for his assistance in
promoting English interests in Switzerland. Roux finished his report …If
you have the intention Milord that I attend the Diet of Gavand which is my
desire and I provide two letters which I judge his Majesty and you Milord
need to write…then it is necessary that this must be done before next
th th
Thursday in the evening (the 10 /20 January 1669)… Roux left England
in February 1669 during the first week of Lent,
Charles II, having received an encouraging response from Louis XIV on
his proposal for the Grand Design, he held a meeting on the 25th
th
January/4 February 1669, with his brother, James, Duke of York (the heir
apparent), his Minister, Lord Arlington and two trusted Catholic advisors,
Sir Thomas Clifford, and Lord Arundell. Charles II sought their advice on
…the ways and methods fit to be taken for advancing the Catholic religion
in his dominions, being resolved not to live any longer in the constraint he
was under". Charles decided at this meeting upon the "settling of the
Catholic religion in his kingdoms, and to consider of the time most proper
to declare himself; telling them withal that no time ought to be lost" and
that "The consultation lasted long, and the result was that there was no
better way for doing this great work than to do it in conjunction with
France and with the assistance of His Most Christian Majesty"…
Following the meeting Charles II prepared a letter which Lord Arundell
delivered to Louis XIV. Arundell was the Master of the Horse to Charles
II’s mother, Henriette-Marie, the Dowager Queen, who was then residing in
France. Arundell’s toing and froing between England and France would
hopefully not arouse any suspicions in England. Charles II also gave the
promised cipher code to Arundell to give to Madame. The code consisted
of a simple cipher of numbers that could be used in place of people’s
names, e.g. Charles II, Louis XIV, Madame, etc., also sensitive key words
such as Catholic, Religion, Pope, England, France, Dutch Republic, etc. If a
name or a word was not on the cipher list then this was encoded using a
basic code whereby each letter of a word was replaced by the next letter of
the alphabet.
Charles II impressed on Madame the importance of absolute secrecy
from now onwards …we must have great care what we write by post, least
it fall into hands which may hinder our design, for I must again conjure
you, that the whole matter be an absolute secret, otherwise we shall never
compass the end we aim at…I send you here a cipher, which is very easy
and secure, the first side is a single cipher, and within such names I could
think necessary to our purpose. I have no more to add but that I am entirely
yours...
In his letter to Louis XIV, Charles II asked the French King to give his
word that should the Grand Design fail for whatever reason, then it must
never be used to Charles II’s prejudice at some future date …You will see,
by the letter which I have written to the King my brother, the desire I have
to enter into a personal friendship with him, and to unite our interests so
for the future, there may never be any jealousies between us. The only
thing which can give any impediment to what we both desire is the matter
of the sea, which is so essential a point to us here as a union upon any
other security can never be lasting, nor can I be answerable to my
kingdoms, if I should enter into an alliance, wherein their present and
future were not fully provided for. I am now thinking of the way how to
proceed in this whole matter, which must be carried on with all secrecy
imaginable, till the particulars are further agreed upon... And as I shall be
very just to the King, my brother (Louis XIV), in never mentioning what has
passed between us, in case this negotiation does not succeed as I desire, so
I expect the same justice and generosity from him, that no advances which I
make out of the desire I have to obtain a true friendship between us, may
ever turn to my prejudice…
…I send you, here enclosed, my letter to the King, my brother, desiring
that the matter might pass through your hands, as the person in the world I
have most confidence in, and I am very glad to find that Monsieur de
Turenne is so much your friend, who I esteem very much, and assure myself
will be very useful in negotiation…But to return to the business of the letter,
I assure you that there is no league entered into as yet with the Emperor.
The only one I am in is the guarantee I am engaged in with the Hollanders
upon the peace at Aix, which is equally binding towards both the Crowns...
In the middle of this letter Charles II included a curious paragraph …I
had written thus far, when I received yours by the Italian, whose name and
capacity you do not know and he delivered your letter to me, in a passage,
where it was so dark, as I do not know his face again if I see him as the
man is likely to succeed, when his recommendation and reception are so
suitable to one another!... The mention of this enigmatic Italian lurking in
the shadows of Whitehall has been used by some writers as evidence of a
link between Charles II and James de La Cloche, however two recently
discovered letters establish beyond doubt that in January 1669, La Cloche
was in Naples, and not London (see later).
rd th
On the 3 /13 February 1669 Lionne, the French Foreign Minister
wrote to Croissy informing him that a courier (Arundell) had arrived from
England bearing a secret letter from Charles II promoting a close union
between France and England. Lionne also referred to a great secret, but did
not enlarge upon it (i.e. the religious component of Charles II’s Grand
Design) …A gentleman of the English Queen-Mother arrived here
carrying a letter to the (French) King being the response from his Majesty
(Charles II) to the letter his Majesty (Louis XIV) wrote and sent via
Leighton when he returned (to England), the substance of which is a desire
for a very close union and in which he reveals a great secret and
concludes that he will consider the best means for achieving it…I believe
that soon you will have in your hands a copy of a response from Madam to
Leighton as the original will not arrive directly from her because she makes
a point of giving it to the same person who serves the English Queen-
Mother (Lord Arundell) who perhaps will leave soon. Monsieur Ruvigny
has also just brought me a letter that he has written to Leighton that he will
give to the same person who goes to England...
All letters from Charles II to Madame now employ the Cipher Code ...I
have dispatched this night my (Lord Arundell) to (Madame) who is fully
instructed as you can wish. You will see by him the reason why I desired
you to write to nobody here of the business of (France) but to myself. He
has some private business of his own to dispatch before he leaves this town
but he will certainly set out this week...
However, despite all the precautions and secrecy, there was a leak at the
French Court and Buckingham learned about the secret negotiations, but
not any about Charles II’s plans regarding religious conversion.
Buckingham’s source was his sister, La Cloche’s mother, the Duchess of
Richmond, who was still a Senior Lady in Waiting to the dowager Queen
Henrietta Marie, then residing in France …Leighton came to see me and
had me read a letter which he told me was written by the Duchess of
Richmond, who is with the Queen-Mother of England, to her brother
Buckingham…She (the Duchess) says that Madame does not have any
confidence in him (Buckingham) and despises him, that she (Madame)
sends an astrologer to negotiate with the King, the Duke of Monmouth and
Hamilton without giving him (Buckingham) any part in it and that the Earl
of Saint-Albans will be here soon and will join in with the others…Also that
one toys with him (Buckingham)…He (Leighton) said to me that
Richmond’s letter had put Buckingham in a bad humour, that he
(Buckingham) said he regretted having given Madame such a large part in
the affair, that Charles II was not at all disposed to it initially and was
dissatisfied with her. That it was Buckingham who had induced Charles II
to confide these negotiations to Madame, in order to give her some credit in
France…
nd st
On the 22 March/1 April 1669, Charles II informed Madame that
their brother James, Duke of York, heir apparent to the English throne and a
recently declared Catholic, was now aware of the Grand Design. Charles II
once again warned Madame about the importance of total secrecy, above
all Buckingham must not learn anything about the religious component of
the Grand Design. Charles II concluded saying that he could do nothing
more until Arundell returned from France …I had not my cipher at
Newmarket, when I received yours of the 16th, so as I could say nothing to
you in answer to it until now, and before this comes to your hands, you will
clearly see upon what score the (Duke of York) is come into the business,
and for what reason I desired you not to write to anybody upon the business
of (France). (Buckingham) knows nothing of (Charles II’s) intentions
towards the (Catholic religion), nor of the person (Arundell) that (Charles
II) sends to (Louis XIV), and you need not fear that he will take it ill that
(Madame) does not write to him, for I have told him that I have forbid
(Madame) to do it, for fear of letters being intercepted, nor indeed is there
much use of writing much upon this subject, because letters may miscarry
and you are, before this time, so fully acquainted with all as there is
nothing more to be added, till my messenger (Arundell) comes back…
In April 1669, Ralph Montague, the newly installed English
Ambassador to the French Court became aware of intrigues at the French
Court involving Lord St. Albans (the outgoing English Ambassador) and
duly reported them to Arlington. Whilst Buckingham had been instrumental
in securing Montague’s appointment as the new Ambassador to the French
Court, Montague decided that it was in his best interest to place himself
squarely in Lord Arlington’s camp. He was after all, Charles II’s trusted
Secretary of State. Montague informed Arlington of secret meetings at the
French Court ...My Lord St. Albans today took his leave of the (French)
King…he had a long private conversation with the King…Afterwards he
went to Mr Colbert (Croissy’s eldest brother) and was as long with him. Mr
de Turenne and he and Madame and Ruvigny are in great consultation
together and couriers are sometimes dispatched into England which
perhaps you do not know of, but if you would order the post-master at
Dover, you should easily find out. I will end this as I did my last in desiring
your lordship to burn it...
Montague was unaware of Charles II’s Grand Design, but he soon
learnt from Madame that secret negotiations for an Anglo-French alliance
were taking place at the French Court. He also discovered that Leighton
was spying for the French and in May 1669 he wrote to Arlington
...Madame did as good as own to me that she is sure that in a short time
England and France will join. I am sure that she cannot know of any such
thing, but Sir Ellis Leighton who is employed by Ruvigny to gain my Lord
Buckingham makes it be believed to get a little more money. And I dare
confidently say he is a spy that tells all he does know and a great deal that
he does not, for the Duke of Buckingham they reckon (is) sure of him, (so)
there is no letting the Duke of Buckingham know anything about Sir Ellis
Leighton because he will never believe it…There are no terms that the King
(Charles II) may not have from the French...and if there be anything here
that you would have me say at any time, it will be worth sending an
express…Mr de Turenne, Lionne and Madame drive on this business
without Colbert’s (Croissy’s) knowledge and would have it out of his
hands...
Croissy, fully appreciative of Leighton’s covert spying activities for the
French, was eager to reward him. In May he asked Louis XIV to provide a
suitable payment to Leighton, ingeniously suggesting 300 pieces of silver
per year, a singular example of the ravages of inflation from the time of
Christ to the seventeenth century! Leighton was promised an extra reward
if a close union with England was achieved and requested an abbotship in
France for his retirement.
Nevertheless, both Arlington and Montague had a low opinion of
Croissy’s ability and conspired to have him replaced. Montague informed
Arlington ...I am very glad you are of my opinion concerning the recalling
of this Ambassador (Croissy) and having another sent which may be a man
of quality and understanding…I will try by Mr Lionne rather than by
Madame to have this Ambassador (Croissy) recalled…
By late April 1669 both Charles II and his bother the Duke of York
were openly promoting a defence and offensive treaty with the French
against the Dutch. Croissy informed the French Court ...The King of
England told me and sufficiently loudly for all who were near us to hear,
that the Dutch were great rascals, that they considered themselves the
arbiters of the destinies of Europe, and that their pride ought to be lowered.
I replied, in a whisper, that when he wished to come to an understanding
with your Majesty (Louis XIV) he would not find it difficult…The Duke of
York informed me that he was more than anxious for such an alliance than
for any other, as he regarded it absolutely essential for the support of
monarchy…
The same month, the secret negotiations for the Grand Design were
nearly compromised by the Earl of Saint Albans, the erstwhile English
Ambassador to the French Court, upon his return to England. Charles II
was worried that Buckingham might learn about the most sensitive part of
the Grand Design, the religious conversion of his kingdoms and instructed
Madame not to write anything to Buckingham that might arouse any
suspicions ...I find by (St. Albans) that he does believe there is some
business with (France), which he knows nothing of...He told (Buckingham)
that I had forbidden (Madame) to write to him, how St Albans comes to
know that, I cannot tell. It will be good that you write sometimes to
(Buckingham) in general terms, that he may not suspect that there are
further negotiations than what he knows of, but pray have a care you do not
say anything to him which may make him think that I have employed
anybody to (Louis XIV) which he is to know nothing of, because by the
messenger (Lord Arundell) he may suspect that there is something of the
(Catholic religion's) interest in the case, which is a matter he must not be
acquainted with. Therefore, you must have a great care, not to say the least
thing that may make him suspect anything of it. I had writ thus far before I
heard of your fall, which puts me in great pain for you…
The Earl of St Albans had indeed been indiscreet, speaking loosely to
all and sundry in London of a forthcoming union between England and
France. The rumours even reached the ears of Samuel Pepys who recorded
in his diary …called upon by Sir H. Cholmly to discourse about some
accounts and then to other talk and I find by him that it is brought almost to
effect, the late endeavours of the Duke of York and Duchess, the Queen-
Mother, and my Lord St. Albans together with some of the contrary faction,
as my Lord Arlington, that for a sum of money we shall enter into a league
with the King of France...
Charles II also informed Madame about the embarrassment St. Albans
was causing and asked her to ensure that the French Court were more
discreet in future …You cannot imagine what a noise (St. Albans) coming
has made here, as if he had great propositions from the (King of France),
which I beat down as much can, it being prejudicial, at this time, to have it
thought that (Charles II) had any other commerce with (Louis XIV) but that
of (a treaty of) commerce, and in order to do that, I have directed some of
the council to meet in with Croissy, which in time will bring on the whole
matter as we can wish, and pray let there be great caution used on the side
of France concerning (Charles II’s) intentions towards (Louis XIV) which
would not only be prejudicial to the carrying on of the matters with
(England), but also to our further designs abroad, and this opinion I am
sure you must be of, if you consider well the whole matter... Charles II also
asked Madame to help persuade Louis XIV of his complete confidence in
Arlington I believe Mr. Montague has before this in some degree satisfied
you concerning my Lord Arlington, and done him that justice to assure you
that nobody is more your servant than he, for he cannot be so entirely mine
as he is and be wanting to you in the least degree, and I will be answerable
for him in what he owes you…
St Albans’s loose-talk about a union with France even came to Croissy’s
attention and in May 1669 he informed the French Court that the reason
why he was not making any headway in England was because of secret
negotiations taking place behind his back in France …I do not write to you
or the King about my negotiations because the rumours about town and at
the court are that a treaty of union with France has been concluded. The
King of England and his Ministers no longer speak to me and reply so
coldly when I question them on the matter, that I see that the hour is not yet
come…
Meanwhile, during all his time in England, Croissy was quite unaware
that Roux had returned there and actively plotted with others against Louis
XIV, before leaving in February 1669 to return to Switzerland on another
mission for the English Government!
.
6
Chapter 21 Intelligence

Chapter 7
Intelligence

The French attempts to abduct Roux on the European mainland during

the latter part of 1668 failed completely. Roux had simply vanished and in
February 1669 Mouslier, the Swiss Resident regretfully informed the
French Court that all his enquiries in Switzerland had led to nothing.
By late November 1668, Roux had returned to London, where he stayed
totally unknown to the French Court and Croissy, before leaving again for
Switzerland in February 1669. That same month, the French court received
fresh intelligence about Roux from a new source. The informant was Erard
de Ragny, a Monk at the Sainte-Claude Abbey in Franche-Comté where
Roux lodged between his meetings with the various Swiss Cantons. Ragny
had taken an extreme dislike to Roux and informed the French Court about
his whereabouts and activities. Whilst Ragny’s letter is undated, from
internal evidence and Lionne’s subsequent actions it can be dated to
February 1669.
Ragny wrote ... The King of England sent Roux to the Swiss Cantons to
locate some state criminals (the English Regicides) who had taken refuge
there. He (Roux) carried letters from Castel-Rodrigo and Lisola to the
prince d’Aremberg...You would not believe the extravagant manner in
which he behaved whilst here and in Besancon. He negotiated with the
Swiss for a time then returned to Besancon and from there to here (Saint
Claude). He has made several journeys to Balthazar’s home and brought
him to Besancon and from there he (Roux) returned to London…
Having reflected upon the proceedings of this villain I have no doubt of
his pernicious intentions…He boasted on several occasions that the French
had debased the house of Austria but that a Frenchman would resurrect it
again… In Besancon letters have been received from Roux dated January
nd
(1669), the latest is dated the 22 . I could not obtain Roux’s code, which he
has from Sire Morland of the English Court, he has much intelligence with
him…
th th
On the 24 February/6 March 1669, Lionne wrote to Croissy …Roux
is in London having returned from Switzerland and is lodging with a person
named Gerard in Convent Garden, we know that he must soon go again to
Switzerland and the King wishes passionately to have him arrested en
route and to this end his Majesty desires that you apply yourself with all
your industry to find this person and discover his plans, above all the date
when he will leave and if possible, the route that he will take and if you
learn anything to advise his Majesty of it promptly…
There was no doubt about the importance and urgency of Louis XIV’s
th th
royal command and Croissy made enquiries in London. On the 4 /14
April he reported back on what he had learned. Croissy had conflicting
information about Roux’s whereabouts. Whilst some people thought that
Roux might have already left London, which was indeed the case, this
could not be confirmed.
Croissy located a person in London named Wariche who he thought
might be Roux and at this point it dawned on him that he had no idea what
Roux looked like and asked Lionne to send him a description. He also
suggested that if Wariche was Roux, he could approach Charles II for
permission to have him arrested in London for a debt or even have him
abducted and returned to France! …I have done everything possible to
uncover in which place this villain (Roux) about whom you have written is
living…and after having had a search made of all the French hostelries
under the pretext of seeing if there are any lodgings for people coming from
France. I have learnt only that at a surgeon’s named Ayme who hires rooms
to a gentleman known as Romain who had come from Rome. His name is
Wariche and has received many visitors and says that he will return in eight
or ten days to Italy by Holland. As you have not described Roux…I do not
know what course of action to take. If you would advise me as soon as
possible of his size and other features and if he (Wariche) is Roux, I could
demand the permission of the King (Charles II) to have him abducted,
and I believe that his majesty would allow me to do it, or I could have him
arrested under pretext of a debt. Otherwise, I could have him followed by
Sire de la Hillière captain-major of the regiment of Piedmont who is with
me and by Sire Bruant. Please give me clarifications and your orders as
soon as possible …
Croissy clearly concerned about his performance in London, signed off
his letter ...I am so unhappy to have failed to arrest this atrocious man…
Louis XIV responded, instructing Croissy …It is hardly likely that the
gentleman who lodges at Ayme’s is the villain that we are looking for. The
only trait that you note is that he is quite decent looking which must make
one think to the contrary as I remember that Monsieur de Ruvigny who has
himself seen Roux in London described him as being sinister looking. I will
go and look up the description in his dispatches and add it to the bottom of
this letter. If it turns out that it is Roux who lodges at Ayme’s, then of all
the options that you have proposed, the King only approves the
suggestion of having him followed by Sire de la Hillière Captain of the
Piedmont regiment and by Sire Bruant, because if you ask permission
from the King of England to have him abducted or to have him arrested
for a debt, you are assured that you will obtain neither one nor the other
or that if one of the two are granted, they would cancel the effect by other
ways that are not beyond the means of Arlington who uses this villain for
negotiations in Switzerland…
Of course, both the French Court and Croissy were quite unaware that
Roux had left England in February 1669, during the first week of Lent to
travel again to Switzerland. Croissy continued making enquiries in London
and in April 1669 and only then could he finally confirm to the French
Court that Roux had left London. At this time Croissy had to apologise to
the French Court for using the wrong cipher when encoding an earlier
despatch and promised to use the correct code in future. Croissy now
proposed that in future he would despatch his letters by a more secure
route, whilst at the same time continuing to send innocuous letters by the
Ordinary Post so not arouse suspicions at the London Post Office …I regret
the embarrassment that I caused you through using the silver code. From
now on I will keep to the one that you sent me and continue to use the
correspondent who delivered your previous letters whilst sending you a
coded dummy letter by the ordinary post in order to prevent any suspicion
to those who are curious…I have continued with all diligence that is
possible to have news on this evil man (Roux) about whom you have
written. Sire Joly spoke about him to Sire Lamborn, a sergeant in the royal
household, under the pretext of some letters that he had to deliver to him,
and has learnt that he lodged at the sign of the Loyal Subject, the place of a
Swiss person. He (Roux) had with him, near the end (of his stay in
England) a secretary, a valet and two lackeys and always paid them well.
He had frequent conferences with Lord Arlington and with the
Ambassador of Spain, he appeared to be a man of spirit and intrigue and
that he left here more than two months ago…
…I have also learned that a person named Lichere, a French merchant,
originally from near Montpellier, of the Protestant religion, a believer of
which I pretended to be also, was a correspondent of this villain and I had
Sire Joly speak to him under the same pretext, but all he could find out was
that he (Lichere) beseeched him never to mention Roux’s name, that he
(Roux) was an evil person who was hatching harmful plots against France
and that he was straining on his leash and that if he was arrested in France
he would not last four days, these were his exact words…
Roux left here more than two months ago, his correspondent is in
Brussels who this villain (Roux) visited on his journey through there.
Lichere wrote to him (saying) that Roux was an evil man with whom he
wanted no contact whatsoever. Also, that he (Lichere) had written to his
(Roux’s) correspondent in Paris, from whom he had two letters for this
villain during the time that he was abroad, to say that he was breaking of
all business with him and if he addressed any more to him, he would throw
them into the fire. Furthermore, he (Lichere) dared not say to him (Roux)
here what he thought of him because he (Roux) would have killed him, but
if he was once again in France, he would reveal what he knew about him.
He (Lichere) repeated to Joly that this man (Roux) had frequent
conferences with Lord Arlington and the Spanish Ambassador…
…I must inform you again, that Sire de Samborne has said that Gerard,
a merchant living at a surgeon’s place in Bedford Street, who is also French
and of the same religion, was his correspondent. I will use my best
endeavours to find out where this villain (Roux) might be and the name of
Lichere’s correspondent in Paris, who might be able inform you more on
the matter. I also believe it would be useful to write to Monsieur de
Pomponne to be diligent on his side (of the Channel) believing that he
(Roux) may now be in Holland…
In late April 1669, the French Court finally received up to date
intelligence from Ragny, the Monk at the Sainte-Claude Abbey. Roux was
back in the Franche-Comté. Louis XIV now set in motion a new plan to
capture Roux. This time it must not fail!

6
Chapter 8 - Abduction

Chapter 8
Abduction

Finally in possession of accurate, up to date intelligence on Roux’s

whereabouts, the French Court mobilised a “snatch squad” to abduct Roux.
Edmund Ludlow, an English Regicide who resided in Switzerland at that
time provides an accurate account of what followed (The misspelling of a
few names have been corrected).
…Monsieur Mouslier, who was then resident for the King of France in
Switzerland, having received information…that this Roux, though a native
of France, had solicited the (Swiss) Cantons to enter into measures
prejudicial to (the French) King's interests, he presently dispatched advice
of what he had heard to the (French) Court; upon which orders were given
to one Monsieur Mazel, who had served under the Marshall Turenne, to
surprise and seize him.
Mazel having traversed the country for some months, before he could
find an opportunity to carry out his plan, at last became acquainted with
and easily corrupted a Priest of St. Claude, who was a great confident of
Roux, procuring him to send a messenger to Balthazar’s house, where Roux
then was, with a letter to invite him to the house of another Priest at
Roussaire, on the frontier of Burgundy, where he promised a great feast
would be provided for his entertainment. Roux would by no means
disappoint his friend the Priest and attended only by one servant, and the
Priest's man, he set forward in the morning, so that he might reach the
place of appointment in convenient time.
But Mazel and his party having placed themselves on the route by which
he was to pass, as soon as he saw Roux approaching, rode up to him and
seized him. Roux’s servant made his escape and left his master to shift for
himself. But the Priest's man who was ignorant of the plan, supposing them
to be robbers, made what resistance he could, and received a shot in the
shoulder of which he died in a few days at Nyon…
Once Roux was seized, Mazel ordered his hands to be tied to the
pommel of the saddle, and his feet under the horse's belly and carried him
off. As they passed by the Abbey of Beaumont, which is situated within the
territories of Bern, Roux began to call for aid, but a handkerchief was put
into his mouth and his voice was no longer heard, In three days they
arrived at Lyon, and secured Roux in the castle of Pierre Encize, where
after some days, he was transported to Paris, and imprisoned in the
Bastille…
A well-informed Abbot Patouillet wrote of Roux’s abduction. The
Abbot openly wondered whether, the Monk at Sainte Claude and Colonel
Balthazar had played a part in the abduction ...Monsieur de Marcilly (Roux)
who negotiated with the Swiss for the interests of your Majesty, was
residing at St. Claude, a town in the Franche-Comté, from where he went
from time to time to Switzerland. He was arrested in St. Surge Wood,
Switzerland, on the frontier, and taken by sixteen French Guards who were
observing his actions. He was coming from seeing Colonel Balthazar, a
Swiss badly treated by France, with whom he was living on familiar terms
and who resided at Prangins, a Swiss village. He had arranged an outing
with the Colonel and they had invited Ragny, a religious Frenchman from
the Abbey of St. Claude. Roux had just met Ragny when he was surrounded
by the Guards on Swiss territory and both escorted to Paris, in France,
twelve days ago…Ragny has been freed, but Marcilly (Roux), a French
subject who was negotiating for Spain will lose his life. I leave it to the
judgment of your Majesty whether this sad encounter was a chance
happening or an intrigue made between France, Balthazar and Ragny
against Marcilly….
Roux’s abduction caused a scandal throughout Western Europe.
Abduction of enemies of the French state was not an uncommon event, an
attempt was later made to abduct Baron Lisola, an envoy of the Hapsburg
Empire who had plotted with Roux in London. Also, Matthioli was lured
onto French soil and abducted. The enraged Council of Berne in whose
territory Roux’s abduction had taken place passed a motion to have the
abductors tried and sentenced in their absence.
th th
On the 14 /24 May 1669, twelve days after the abduction, Roux was
delivered to the Bastille prison in Paris. News of his capture quickly spread.
Montague, the English Ambassador knew nothing about Roux and
informed Arlington ...I dare not venture to solicit in Monsieur Roux
Marcilly’s behalf because I do not know whether the King my Master
employed him or not; besides he is a man as I have been told by many
people here of worth, that has given out that he is resolved to kill the
French king at one time or other, and I think such men are as dangerous to
one king as to another. He is brought to the Bastille and I believe may be
proceeded against and put to death, in very few days. There is great joy in
this Court for his being taken, and a hundred thousand crowns, I am told
very privately (was) set upon his head. The French Ambassador in England
watched him, and he has given the intelligence here of his being employed
by the King (of England), and sent into Switzerland by my Master to draw
the Swiss into the Triple League. He aggravates the business as much as he
can to the prejudice of my Master to value his one service the more, and
they seem here to wonder that the King my Master should have employed
or countenanced a man that had so base a design against the King's
Person...
…I had a great deal of discourse with Monsieur about it, but I did
positively say that he had no relation to my knowledge to the King my
Master, and if he should have, I make a question or not whither in this case
the King will own him. However, my Lord, I had nothing to do to own or
meddle in a business that I was so much a stranger to…This Roux Marcilly
is a great creature of the Baron. d'Isola, which makes them here hate him
the more. The Spanish Resident was very earnest with me to have
something done on behalf of Marcilly, but I positively refused…
Montague sent Arlington a letter that he received from Prince
d'Aremberg the Governor of Franche-Comté who had assisted Roux during
his negotiations with the Swiss together with and an anonymous letter from
a well-placed person in Paris …I have sent your lordship a copy of a letter
that was sent to me by the Spanish resident (Aremberg) but I could not tell
how to do anything in the business, never having heard of the man (Roux),
or that he was employed by my Master (Charles II) in any business. I have
(also) sent you also a copy of a letter which an Englishman wrote to me
that I do not know, on behalf of Roux de Marcilly, but that does not come by
the post, being too secret.
Anonymous to Arlington…Roux de Marcilly is still in the Bastille
though they have a mind to hang him, they are much puzzled what to do
with him. De Lionne has been to examine him twice or thrice, but there is
no witness to prove anything against him. I was told by one that the French
king told it to, that in his papers they find great mention of the Duke of
Bucks and your name (Arlington), and speak as if he were much trusted by
you. I have enquired what this Marcilly is, and I find by one Mr. Marcilly
that I am acquainted with all, and a man of quality, that this man's name is
only Roux, and born at Nimes and having been formerly a soldier in his
troop, ever since has taken his name to gain more credit in Switzerland
where he, Roux, formerly used to be employed by his Colonel, the Marshall
de Schomberg…
Ruvigny, the former French Ambassador to the English Court who had
alerted the French Court to Roux’s intrigues in London in 1668, was now
residing again in Paris. One evening he received a visit from du Moulin,
one of Montague’s secretaries. Ruvigny informed the French Court ...If my
bad eye had not worsened from having been yesterday to St Germain, I
would have returned this morning to tell you that du Moulin, secretary to
the English Ambassador came to see me yesterday in the evening to learn
from me if it was true that I had seen the prisoner (Roux) in England and if
being hidden behind the tapestry that I had really heard him say things
against the service and the body and person of his Majesty, and as I said to
him that this was true and that he surely was an evil man, he beseeched me
to tell him in which place I had seen him and the way that it happened…He
asked me by whom I had heard of this man. I said to him that you (Lionne)
had written to me that a Frenchman should pass through England after
having spent two weeks in Brussels in the home of Castel-Rodrigo and that
surely I would have news of him from the Spanish Ambassador or from
Lisola’s residence, which satisfied him...I believe to have put him at his
ease so not to suspect the person (Morland) who gave me such good
information and who merits being preserved, I assure you that this
insignificant secretary has made me aware by his questions that he is not at
all ignorant of the practices of this villain. I do not doubt at all that he will
write about it to Monsieur Arlington, whose creature he is…
Ruvigny’s suspicions were correct. Du Moulin had been gathering
intelligence on Roux so he could provide a detailed report to Arlington.
The report provides some additional details of the abduction and summary
of the reaction amongst the diplomatic community in Paris. Moulin
confirms that the French Court had also sent agents to England in order to
locate and seize Roux. These were likely Sire de la Hillière and Sire Bruant
who Croissy suggested might tail Roux in London if he showed up there
…My Lord, (Arlington) has received by the last post a copy of the (letter
from) Prince of Aremberg concerning Monsieur Roux de Marcilly, and I
assume that his Excellency (Montague) had reported to you on the meetings
that he has had on this subject with the Spanish envoy, and at St. Germain
with Monsieur (Duke of Orléans)...Ever since Monsieur de Ruvigny was in
England last, and upon the information he gave, this King (Louis XIV) had
a very great desire to seize if it were possible this Roux de Marcilly, and
several persons were sent to effect it, into England, Holland, Flanders, and
Franche-Comté... Those that took him say they found no papers about him,
but that he desired them to write to Monsieur Balthazar to desire him to
take care of his papers and to send him the commission he had from
England and a letter being written to that effect it was signed by the
prisoner and instead of sending it as they had promised, they have brought
it hither along with them...
…They do all unanimously report that he (Roux) did constantly affirm
that he was employed by the King of Great Britain and did act by his
commission, so that the general discourse here in town is that one of the
King of England's agent is in the Bastille, though at Court they pretend to
know nothing of it and would have the world think they are persuaded he
had no relation to his Majesty (Charles II)… Monsieur, fearing that my
Lord Ambassador was come to interpose on the prisoner's behalf asked him
on Friday last at St. Germain whether that was the cause of his coming,
and told him that he did not think he would speak for a man that attempted
to kill the King...
William Perwich, another of Montague’s secretaries and the Gazetteer
René Petit, a French agent in the employ of Sir Joseph Williamson, also
dispatched reports to London about Roux’s interrogations in the Bastille …
Monsieur Lionne has seen Roux de Marcilly several times in the Bastille,
they have taken eight others since who were part of his cabal. Lionne, on
the first visit could not obtain anything from him other than he was not his
judge. The second time, they were three hours together, and the third time,
Roux said that he had things of the utmost importance that he could only
declare to the King…One has taken away from him a wallet containing all
his negotiations for the Triple Alliance. This Roux is a spirited man and
intriguer who has acquired lots of experience in affairs by means of his
voyages and his negotiations. He alone caused twenty thousand Swiss to be
placed under arms to prevent his capture. But, thanks to a (false) alarm
cleverly caused by Briquemaut the others had the time to abduct him. His
Majesty (Louis XIV) said that he would trade a hundred thousand Ecus to
have this man in his hands. He had him followed in England and Holland
as well as Switzerland…
…Roux has prudently declared he had something of importance to say
but it should be to the King himself, which may be means of giving respite
to his process and as he hopes intercession may be made for him; but
people talk so variously of him that I cannot tell whether he ought to be
owned by any Prince. The Swiss have indeed the greatest ground to reclaim
him as being taken in their (lands). They have all his papers which speak
much of the Triple Alliance; if they have no other pretext of hanging him I
know not whether they can lawfully do this, he having been naturalised in
Holland and taken in a privileged Country…
By early June 1669, the general opinion amongst the diplomatic and
spying community in Paris was that Roux had not committed any major
crime. Petit informed Sir Joseph Williamson ...The crime of an attempt
against the life of the King that Roux is being charged with is not at all
sustainable. One knows that the intrigue of this man only went as far as
reuniting all the other religions to support his, that one has seriously
undertaken (religious) persecutions in France. And I know from good
sources that Marshal Turenne ingenuously confessed in company of people
who were speaking of this affair that at the time that he was still of this
religion, this same Roux had made to him overtures towards this intention
and that he had refused to take part in a plan that appeared most
chimerical. All this makes you believe what one says, that he played a
principal part in the plan to arrest this man, for the freedom of which I
have not yet heard that the Swiss are taking any vigorous measures…I
learn that Messrs Mazel and Briquemaut have been rewarded with a sum of
money with the promise of employment for the capture of Roux de Marcilly,
and that furthermore one has given fifty Pistolles to each of the three or
four soldiers whom they used to execute their plan...
The Venetian Ambassador confirmed that Roux had been interrogated
by Lionne …Monsieur de Lionne having questioned the accused (Roux)
three times has reported to his Majesty that he did not reveal that Roux was
involved in any criminal plotting and uncovered nothing from the prisoner
other than some desire to re-establish elsewhere the fortune that through
unfortunate conditions he had lost in this Kingdom...
Given that no strong evidence could be found to implicate Roux, Louis
XIV ordered his Lieutenant Criminal (the Solicitor General) to put Roux to
the “question extraordinary” the French euphemism for interrogation under
torture to make him reveal everything he knew before being executed in
accordance with French law being execution on the wheel! Whereby the
condemned was placed with their back on a cartwheel and their limbs
stretched out along the spokes. The wheel was made to revolve slowly, and
a large hammer or an iron bar was then applied to every limb over the gap
between the beams, breaking all the bones!

6
Chapter 9 – The wheel of fortune

Chapter 9
The wheel of fortune

The Lieutenant Criminal who was instructed to interrogate Roux,

th th
reported on the 4 /14 June to Croissy’s elder brother, Jean-Baptiste
Colbert, the French Minister of Finances...Having today gone to the
Bastille to continue the interrogation of Roux, I found him in bed, feigning
to be suffering great pain and urine retention, which made him incapable to
reply, and although I was persuaded that it was simulated, nevertheless in
order to observe the formalities of justice, I asked for the surgeon, who
after having seen him reported to me that he did not see any apparent sign
of the illness of which Roux was complaining. But, as he insisted that he
could not bear it any longer and that he asked that I delay his interrogation
until tomorrow, I believed that I was able to accord him it in order to
remove any pretext of this complaint being of any significance. After which,
having withdrawn myself he said to the Lieutenant of the Bastille that the
worry within him was contributing to his illness, that I was strongly
pushing him, and that if I was to leave him five or six days he would be
cured. In fact, I noticed that he no longer has this boldness of spirit by
which he replied to me initially and that he commences to recognise that
the King knows more about him than he had imagined. It is by this
consideration that it is necessary to push him in the state he is in by which
one must hope for the recognition of the truth...
The Lieutenant Criminal gave Roux a few days to recover from his
illness and Montague reported to Lord Arlington …The Lieutenant
Criminal has proceeded pretty far with Le Roux Marcilly. The crime they
form their process on being a rape which he had formerly committed at
Nimes so that he perceiving but little hope of his life, sent word to the King
that if he would pardon him, he could reveal things to him which would
concern him more and be of greater consequence to him, than his
destruction...
However, before the Lieutenant Criminal returned to continue the
th nd
interrogation, Roux attempted suicide. On the 12 /22 June 1669, Petit
informed Williamson …Roux, having refused for a long time to confess
anything, seeing himself threatened with being put to the question
(tortured), found yesterday the means to get hold of a knife, with which he
cut off his penis and genitals. He is at life’s end and in order that his life
does not go unpunished, I learn that he is to be taken from the Bastille to be
judged and have executed with all the rigour that his crime might allow
before the day is out...
Lionne informed Croissy about the attempted suicide, expressing his
annoyance that Roux had outwitted him, having avoided being put to the
question (tortured) and revealing his intrigues and the names of his
accomplices …Roux having tried all ways imaginable for a week to dispose
of himself, (going) as far as cutting his virile member with a knife and after
that, the little finger of the left hand, without saying a word about it to
anybody, hoping to be able to die from the simple loss of blood. He (also)
made a rope from a cravat to strangle himself. He also wanted to break his
head against a wall, but was prevented by those who were ordered to keep
him under continual watch as soon as they were aware of his intentions.
There was no way of making him take a spoonful of food during the last
four days that he lived and he played his role so well, right to the end that
he avoided being put to the question, as it was feared that he would die at
any moment, pretending already to be half dead and as though he could not
proffer a single word before his judges…
Vernon of Montagues Secretaries informed the English Court …on
th st
Friday 11 /21 current he (Roux) wounded himself which he did, but not
because he was confronted with Ruvigny as the Gazettes speak (for he knew
before he should die), but he thought by dismembering himself that the loss
of blood would carry him out of the world before it should come to be
known that he had wounded himself. And when the Governor of the Bastille
spied the blood, he said it was a stone that was come from him which
caused that effusion. However, the governor mistrusted him and searched
him to see what wound he had (actually) done. So, they seared him and sent
word to St. Germain (the French Court)...
Apparently at death’s door, Roux was hurriedly put on trial that same
day. Monsieur Efita, the Solicitor General reported to the French Court …
In fulfilment of the orders of the King and the message given this morning,
having proceeded with the judgement of Marcilly (Roux), which was
commenced yesterday. The prisoner was brought into the chamber, very
weak and at the end of his life. He was interrogated, and he replied in a
very low voice, and almost by signs, after which he was judged and duly
found guilty of being involved with secret negotiations against the service
of the King and the good of the State and of having held several
pernicious discourses which signalled his abominable intentions against
the sacred person of his Majesty, for the reparation of which he is
condemned to be broken on the wheel and the execution ordered to take
place before the Porte de Paris, fearing that in condemning him later he
would have died beforehand. If he had been in a better physical) state, the
punishment would have been a great example, and the reason for which he
was condemned would perhaps not have been wasted, but being unable to
cause him to suffer, the judges have only done their duty...
The clerk of the court’s reported that …The judgement was announced
to Roux Marcilly, in the office of the Criminal Clerk of le Chatelet, where
he had been taken from the Criminal Court, having no longer been able to
question him because of his continuing weakness by which he was falling at
any moment, through the injuries that he caused himself, and which meant
that he could not be put to the question, in accordance with the sentence,
 th nd
this Saturday 12 /22 June 1669 at ten o’clock in the morning.
On the said day at ten o‘clock on the report which has been made by the
doctors and surgeons of Le Chatelet, that Roux was in peril of his life, that
there was hardly any movement or pulse, and that if one did not execute
him soon promptly, he would no longer be alive in half an hour.
Having brought Roux from the office, and the executioner taking him to
the crossroads of la Porte de Paris, where being laid out on the square the
sentence was once again read out. Feigning to be in agony, (he was) next
carried on to the scaffolding, where being tied by the arms and legs, he
began to speak in a very loud voice and with such force and vigour, that it
appeared to us that all that he had done until now was a ruse and feint to
prolong his life and to deceive the process of justice. Saying that he had
heard all that had been said to him and asked of him by us as also the
announcement of his sentence, even all the exhortations that the Doctor of
the Sorbonne said to him who treated him, but that he would (rather) suffer
a hundred thousand times being broken on the wheel than change his
religion, and be a martyr to his cause.
On which we approached the scaffold where we asked him to tell the
truth and declare the names of his accomplices and those about which he
wanted to speak at the trial, in all, everything that he has said was of
importance to tell his Majesty. Marcilly (Roux) replied that since the king
had put him in the state that he was, he was not obliged to say anything or
declare what he knew to be of importance to the good of his (the King’s)
service and his State, and that nevertheless, if one was to bring to him a
Minister (of the Protestant faith) to aid him, he would reveal all things.
Which obliged us straight way to ask Monsieur Daillé, an elder of the
Protestant religion, who had been warned two hours before the execution,
to be ready in case Roux asked for someone of his religion…
…During this time Roux conducted himself atrociously against the
sacred person of his Majesty, holding forth full of anger and energy, which
seemed to come from a demon than from a man, crying in a loud voice that
he would continue whilst he had the use of his speech, and that he had
wanted to kill himself to avoid the execution that he was going to suffer and
afterwards he was incontinent. Monsieur Daillé having arrived on the
scaffold, explained to him the enormity of his crimes and offences that he
had committed, and that he might only hope for salvation if one was to ask
for forgiveness of God, the King and of the Justice, and that otherwise God
would never forgive him, and that it was this that he ought to be thinking
before leaving this life, that the principles of their religion obliged them to
honour their sovereigns and that if by the law of god it was forbidden to kill
and cause harm to his nearest, and that the same applied more so to
oneself, and that thus having wanted to kill himself he had sinned against
the law of god and that of nature…
…On which Roux replied that it gave him consolation to see him, to be
able to make his true confession which was that he recognised himself to be
guilty of all the main points of accusation against him in his trial, that he
believed to avenge his religion and that for this he had been across many
lands to induce all foreign princes against the King, since he wanted to
remove the freedom of praying to God in France. That he never had any
accomplices in his plans within the Kingdom, praying to god not to receive
his soul, and let him rot in hell if he was not telling the truth and if there
was man, woman, girl or boy who was part of it. But, that it was true that
while in England, and having communicated his plans to some persons, he
was right to take advantage of them so, that he wanted to die a martyr for
his religion, that this was the cause of all his brothers who wanted to
avenge themselves, that Monsieur Daillé ought to do as the others, and that
he charged him with telling them that he was dying in the spirit of avenging
his religion. On this, Monsieur Daillé wanted to leave no longer
recognising him for his brother and abandoning him to eternal
abomination, since he persisted in wanting to die with such atrocious
thoughts, and that he would not pray to God for him if he did not ask for
pardon…
…On which Roux said that he asked for pardon from God and that he
prayed for his soul. After which Monsieur Daillé asked if he could in safety
say some prayers for him. To which we said to him that he could do all that
was found appropriate for his religion, and that we would stay always near
him for his safety and hold the crowd in their duty. On which Daillé said
some prayers for Roux then withdrew…
…And straight away Roux started again his abominable shouting and
said that he was dying with the wish of persecuting the King forever, since
he was pushing away those of his religion and that if he was in a state,
there was nothing to spare him from those that had done this. Seeing well
that there was no appearance of a conversion in Marcilly, we carried out
the execution of his sentence, after which being on the wheel, having again
continued his same shouting, for as long as his condition enabled him, until
around four o’ clock when he expired…
Vernon, another of Montague's secretaries, later spoke to Monsieur
Daillé, the Protestant minister who had administered to Roux at the
execution, in order to obtain some clarity on certain statements that Roux
made on the scaffold … Saturday, about one of the clocks he was brought
on the scaffold before the Chatelet and tied to a St. Andrew's Cross all
which while he acted the dying man and scarce stirred, and seemed almost
breathless and fainting. The Lieutenant General pressed him to confess and
there was a doctor of the Sorbonne who was a counsellor of the Chatelet
there likewise to exhort him to unburden his mind of anything which might
be upon it. But he seemed to take no notice and lay panting. Then the
Lieutenant Criminal bethought himself that the only way to make him speak
would be to send for a minister so he did to Monsieur Daillé but because
the Edicts do not permit ministers to come to condemned persons in public
but only to comfort them in private before they go out of prison, he refused
to come till he sent a bailiff who if he had refused the second time would
have brought him by force. At this second summons he came but not
without great expectations to be affronted in a most notorious manner
being the first time a minister came to appear on a scaffold and that upon
so sinister an occasion. Yet, when he came, he found a great press of
people. All made way, none let fall so much as a taunting word. He came
up the scaffold, great silence all about. He found him (Roux) lying bound
and stretched on the St. Andrew's Cross naked ready for execution. He told
him he was sent for to exhort him to die patiently and like a Christian…
…Then immediately they were all surprised to see him hold up his head
which he let hang on one side before like a drooping calf and speak as loud
and clear as the minister, to whom he said with a cheerful air he was glad
to see him, that he need not question but that he would die like a Christian
and patiently too. Then he went and spoke some pieces of Scripture to
encourage him which he heard with great attention. They afterward came
to mention some things to move him to contrition, and there he took an
occasion to aggravate the horror of a Crime of attempting against the
King's person. He said he did not know what he meant. For his part he
never had any evil intention against the Person of the King…
…The Lieutenant Criminal stood all the while behind Monsieur Daillé
and hearkened to all and prompted Monsieur Daillé to ask him if he had
said there were ten Ravaillacs (Regicides) besides which would do (evil to)
the King's business. He protested solemnly he never said any such words or
if he did, he never remembered, but if he had it was with no intention of
Malice. Then Monsieur Daillé turned to the people and made a discourse
in vindication of those of the (Protestant) Religion that it was no principle
of theirs to make attempts on the persons of King(s) but only loyalty and
obedience. This ended he went away; he stayed about an hour in all…
…And immediately as soon as he was gone, they went to their work and
gave him eleven blows with a bar and laid him on the wheel. He was two
hours dying. All about Monsieur Daillé I heard from his own mouth for I
went to wait on him because it was reported he had said something
concerning the King of England but he could tell me nothing of that. There
was a rumour that he (Roux) said when taken from Le Chatelet. ‘The Duke
of York hath done me a great injury.’…When he was on the wheel, he was
heard to say, ‘The King (Louis XIV) is a great tyrant, the King treats me
barbarously.’ All that you read concerning oaths and dying in a rage is
false, all the oaths he used being only assertions to Monsieur Daillé that he
was falsely accused as to the King's person...
There is no doubt that Roux’s capture was of major significance to
Louis XIV, as demonstrated by the generous rewards he gave to the key
personnel instrumental in Roux’s abduction. Ragny, the informer was
awarded a pension of three thousand livres and later in September 1669
was made Abbot of Tirroneau Abbey. Captain Mazel who led the snatch
squad received a significant monetary award and then in April 1670 he was
knighted in recognition of his services of …a matter of utmost confidence
concerning the safety of our person (Louis XIV)...
In late June 1669 after Roux’s execution, a tardy witness provided new
information about Roux’s activities in London. A French merchant named
Jacques Gueston wrote to Croissy in London, advising him that he had met
Roux in Dover in the Golden Lion during the first week of Lent in February
1669, when he was leaving England to go to the continent. Whilst Jacques
Gueston’s account is revealing and damming, it was of no practical use,
arriving at the French Court weeks after Roux’s execution …Roux, about
forty to forty-five years old speaking French with an accent of Languedoc.
He said that it was more than fifteen years since he had been back to his
homeland. He wore a dark Drugget (wool fabric cloth) that he bought in
Brussels because the Count of Molina had advised him to wear such
clothes because he would often be on the road…He had with him two
valets, one brown the other blonde, the first German, the other of English
nationality. He told me that in addition he had a secretary in Flanders who
spoke very good Spanish…I learned from him (Roux) of the state of affairs
in England, amongst others things …he said the Duke of Ormond was
finished (in politics), notwithstanding that he was supported by the Duke of
York, that Lord Arlington had caused his demise, by things being declared
in his favour…and that Colbert (de Croissy) along with other French
supporters) had done his most to prevent this fall from grace, but without
success, that the person who had reversed all their plans was the Duke of
Buckingham, the best man in the world and who was his (Roux’s) intimate
friend and he (Roux) drank no others wine but his…that he had another
intimate friend, Lord Orrery, that they had halted the Duke of York who
managed to lose his reputation in such a manner that he would never reveal
it because he wanted to oppose the Triple Alliance that he assured had been
signed just some days ago and that the Swiss would enter into the
treaty...He told me that if the King of England did otherwise he would be
ruined, that the Duke of Albermarle had declared to him (the English King)
that if he did not take this side, he would be obliged to remove himself from
his (the King’s) service…
…He (Roux) spoke to me about all these things with such certainty that
I was left with the feeling that he might well have some part in this
negotiation, above all when I saw that the wind was totally against his sea
passage, he sent the offer of a considerable sum to find someone who was
willing to take him over (the sea). He let slip that he was eagerly expected
and that he would have been three of four months in England, but that
business there was cruelly long. That over two months one had been
postponing things from one day to the other and that finally the Duke of
Buckingham, absolute master of the (English) King had him transported as
he wished...
…He stayed with the Count of Molina and the Spanish Ambassador in
London, he said that he was an intimate friend of the Duke of Buckingham,
the best man in the world. And he claimed to be on the same intimate terms
with Lord Orrery…He was wary of Arlington who would in the end have to
espouse the views of France. He had confidence in Buckingham, Lord
Orrery and the Duke of Albemarle who would be completely behind a
political policy contrary to that of France…
…Above all, he was not ignorant of the total opposition of the (English)
Parliament and public sentiment to the political policy of the (English)
King regarding the French, but, he does not have full confidence in their
stamina. And that until William (of Orange) took the throne, all the
undertakings that the English might make through political alliances to
contain the ambitions of Louis XIV would result in not one piece of real
action…
Following this revelatory letter, the French were now aware that not
only Arlington, but Buckingham too, were involved with Roux’s intrigues
After Roux’s execution, Arlington, sought to conceal his involvement
with Roux. He informed Sir William Temple, the English Ambassador at
th
The Hague... Your last of the 12 entertains us with Monsieur Pomponne’s
discourse upon the taking and execution of Roux de Marcilly…his
indiscreet discourse here of which he was very lavish may have exposed
him to this misfortune. But I am confident it came not…by any such
stratagem as Monsieur de Ruvigny standing behind a (tapestry) hanging.
All he was trusted (with) hence was his own undertaking and unasked
offer of getting the regicides sent out of Switzerland, he admitting he had
credit to affect it though the event showed the contrary. But this colour they
are willing to put upon it in France rather than declare their suspicion of
other transactions of his under the direction of Baron d’Isola of which yet I
suppose they know very little since he (Roux) obstinately refused to the last
moment to confess anything…
…I am persuaded (he) might yet be alive if he had not hastened his
death with his own hands. Which however done by himself would have
reflected more upon the government in France than the executing him as
they did. In a word the man was a complete mad-man and so I assure you
ever handled (thus) by me, whatever other opinion others had of him…
After Roux’s execution, Louis XIV arrested some of Roux’s suspected
collaborators in France, but then decided against further arrests in order to
let the scandal surrounding Roux’s abduction die away from public
attention. In June the gazetteer Petit reported to the English Court …A
Parisian of lowly station, a bourgeois, who had been placed in the Bastille,
since the execution of Roux, for suspicion of being in his cabal, has cut his
throat… In July Petit, newsletter writer reported …The (Roux) affair
having been examined in (the King’s) Council, it was resolved that one
would let the affair die down, and an order was sent to the Lieutenant
Criminal not drag it out, in order avoid arousing the curiosity of the world
on the reason of his death…
The Spanish Resident in Paris writing to his Foreign Minister in August
1669 revealed that any mopping-up exercises in the aftermath of the Roux
affair would be handled in secret …the man who has been tried was called
Marcilly (Roux). I think that he is well known to you…Since his execution,
they did not even take the same care when they arrested three or four
individuals who wanted to kill the King. Two killed themselves in prison
and of the others, it is clear they will be executed secretly in order not to let
it be known that this scheme has made such great progress…
Lionne, who attended Roux’s interrogations informed Croissy that he
would communicate any useful information he had acquired in a future
letter …in order to contribute to managing the conduct of affairs with
regard to certain persons (in England)… Later in August 1669, Lionne
informed Croissy ...I am not able to rejoice in the growing credit of Milord
Orrery when I remember the picture that Roux painted of him at a time
when I visibly recognised that he was not hiding any truth so to obtain
favour. He (Roux) told me that he (Orrery) believed himself to be the
cleverest man in England, that he held…the views of the Duke of
Buckingham and that one of the maxims with which he (Buckingham) had
inspired him (Orrery) was that England would be lost and without resource
if King Louis XIV became the master of the Low Countries and (as a
consequence) of which, they (the English) were no less interested than the
Dutch in opposing the aggrandisement of the power of his Majesty (Louis
XIV)…
There is a poignant footnote to the tragic adventure of Roux de
Marcilly, at the English archives. In a memorandum of the meeting of the
st
Foreign Committee of the King’s Council, dated the 31 October 1669,
drafted by Sir Joseph Williamson, Roux is referred to using the code name
Rouen Marseilles (Roux de Marcilly). Williamson would disguise people’s
names by such place-name aliases in his minute books. Williamson
mentions the names of two people who betrayed Roux, Colonel Balthazar
and Sir Samuel Morland …Write to Colonel Balthazar, taking notice in the
King’s name of his good affection to serve his Majesty, by his best offices
with the Cantons and to encourage him to continue them. As to his
complaints on the matter of Rouen, Marseilles (Roux de Marcilly) these are
not answered, Prince Rupert said that by the omission of Sir Samuel
Morland to whom they were addressed, they have not been received…
It is debatable whether Roux was a fanatic or a martyr. Based on
Arlington’s summing up one might conclude that he was a bragging
madman and was the cause of his own tragic death. However, in Gueston’s
description of Roux, one might perceive him to be a person of vision. Not
only was his plan to turn France into a republic one hundred and twenty
years before its time, Roux with some foresight asserted that until William
of Orange became king (although in this case he was referring to the Dutch
States) everything the English did to contain the ambitions of Louis XIV
would result in nothing. Just nineteen years later William of Orange would
become King of Great Britain and Ireland and set in place a pan-European
alliance which during the reign of his successor, Queen Anne, inflicted a
crushing defeat on Louis XIV’s army at the Battle of Blenheim in August
1704.
Roux conspired with government ministers, officials and diplomats of
various nations including Spain, the Dutch States, the Swiss Cantons, the
Austrian Empire and England. His intrigues included the seeding and
spreading of dissent and revolution in France (albeit to deliver the
Huguenots from unjust oppression) and plotting to assassinate Louis XIV
(whether real or just loose talk while in his cups). This caused sufficient
anxiety within the mind of Louis XIV which sealed Roux’s fate and he was
arrested because of his inability to hold his tongue in the presence of
alleged friends who were quite willing to betray him, not least, Morland,
Balthazar, Gueston and Ragny.
The French seized Roux’s papers which would have confirmed the
worst suspicions of the French Court about Arlington, notably the
intelligence report that Roux provided about the readiness of several
regions of France to rise up against Louis XIV. Roux’s captured papers
would have confirmed that Arlington was generally opposed to French
interests even if he had only used Roux to make representations to the
Swiss Cantons to hand over the English Regicides, this being a pre-
condition to allowing the Swiss Cantons to join the Triple Alliance of
Protestant States against France, being the sole counterweight to Louis
XIV’s expansionist aims. Roux’s papers and Gueston’s report also revealed
Roux’s close ties with the Duke of Buckingham.
Following Roux’s execution, Charles II immediate concern was whether
Roux’s intrigues against Louis XIV, especially Arlington and
Buckingham’s possible involvement would now jeopardise the secret
negotiations for the Grand Design.

6
Chapter 10 - See Naples and die

Chapter 10
See Naples and die

th th
After travelling to London and meeting Charles II about the 8 /18
November 1668, La Cloche returned to Rome carrying a letter from
Charles II to Father Oliva, the General of the Jesuits advising him that La
Cloche would convey by word of mouth a secret message from Charles II,
and to return to London with the Father General’s reply. On his voyage
back to London La Cloche was instructed to collect a Priest that he had left
in France during his first voyage to England. After arriving in Rome in the
early days of January 1669 and delivering Charles II’s secret commission to
the Father General of the Jesuits, the adventures of James de La Cloche
took a most bizarre twist!
La Cloche was exhausted after his long trip to London and back to
Rome and decided to over-winter in Naples to recuperate before returning
to London in springtime with the Father General’s response. The most
contemporary and detailed account of La Cloche’s Neapolitan adventure is
provided by Vincenzo Armanni in a letter published just five years after the
events. Whilst Armanni’s letter is undated, it was clearly written prior to
1674, the year of its publication in a large three-volume book of letters.
Given the time needed to collate and publish such a large collection, the
letter was almost certainly written closer to the events of 1669. Armanni’s
account is detailed, factual and agrees very well with other contemporary
evidence. One of Armanni’s key sources was La Cloche’s confessors in
Naples.
Most English-speaking historians, have relied on a nineteenth century
résumé of Armani’s letter published by Mezieres-Brady. However, the
original letter is much more detailed and informative. It is written in an
elegant style which alone warrants the first full English translation made by
the author’s friend George Wigley.
…Most illustrious Sire, you have not been accurately informed on the
events surrounding the death of James Stuart (La Cloche), an important
person from England and a most devout Catholic: However, if you wish to
know the truth, I am quite certain that nobody is better informed than
myself to inform you about it.
He (James de la Cloche) was not the son of King Charles I of Great
Britain (a king so honest and good that during my time in England he had
the reputation of having only known the marital bed). James’s father was
Charles II who fathered him with a lady also of the royal Stuart blood at a
time when both were, one might say, at an innocent age when love,
opportunity and temptation, all too prevalent, lead even the holiest of souls
towards base pleasures.
This English gentleman in his first youth made a profession of faith
when he came to Italy and since he was not in good health when he arrived
in Rome, he wished to travel to Naples thinking that the air of that
delightful and agreeable city would be pleasant and healthy. From there he
planned to return to England by sea, carrying a letter written to an
important person, concerning serious and secret negotiations to the
advantage of our holy religion, and being expected in Paris (en route) by
his first spiritual director, but about all this we must say nothing more.
In Naples, nobody knew anything about him other than as a Catholic
person from Great Britain, but the nobility of his lineage and the piety of
his soul were evident in the quality of his demeanour. Added to which,
arriving in the company of Signore N. Francese, a knight of the Order of
Jerusalem in Rome to whom the Ambassador of that same Order in Rome,
recommended him and who then in turn, on leaving (Naples) for Malta,
recommended him (La Cloche) to the Abbot of Saint Aniello of the ordinary
Canons of Saint Salvatore.
It was through these introductions that he joined that church and
continued his frequent devotions, in particular taking the holy Sacraments
of confession and Communion under the direction of his (new) spiritual
father who was one of the Canons and a curate of that place, a man of
exemplary life and lineage. It is from this Priest, whose friendship I am
pleased to enjoy and also from the kindness of other honest people that I
have received written information upon which I have principally based this
account.
So, to keep to the point, he (La Cloche) gave only a vague insight into
his parentage, hinting just that his father was an important gentleman in
England and his mother was of a great family. Professing the faith of the
Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome in whose bosom he had found
refuge after having abjured heresy and by learning the Evangelical Truth
from excellent religious tutors, he said he had great hopes for the justness
and splendour of our Faith in his homeland, but any more than that he did
not say and the Priest did not ask.
At that time in the Church of Saint Aniello there was a miraculous
Crucifix, famous for granting grace to those who requested it and in this
belief the Neapolitans are numerous. Amongst them two middle class
honourable and devout women, a mother and her daughter who went there
every Friday to pray for the Divine Saviour to help the future of the girl
and to that end they fasted that day and ate the most sacred food of the
angels. One morning when the Priest was talking with some people about
taking in the English gentleman from his present lodgings with which he
was not happy and finding better ones, the appearance of the two women in
the church made him think that he (La Cloche) might be more comfortable
in their house and so he spoke to the mother and then to the husband, a
godly man, and they decided to accept him.
The opportunity (for La Cloche) to see this young daughter often, to talk
with her and to judge her by her speech, her bearing, the modesty of her
actions and her kindness, all these things were the inducement by which a
fire was lit in his body which disordered his conscience, scrambled his
reasoning and fascinated his intellect. According to what he said, he would
rather have tied a stone around his neck and throw himself in the sea to be
eaten rather than offend the purity of a girl who as he said was surrounded
by roses and by the purest of lilies. But wishing to satisfy his love which
contained the force of a bursting star and out of necessity he decided to
marry her even though he knew the blame that he would incur from
everyone.
He flattered his passion believing her innocent and himself
unreasonable but at least forgivable by the intemperance of age, by the
sloth of nature and by the poison of the occasion, often repeating the voice
of an oracle, the words so well-known with which lovers justify the
enormity of their mistakes, that “whilst in love any excuse is admissible
when reflecting on one’s guilt.”
One morning by chance he met the young lady when she was alone,
coming out of her mother’s room and instead of greeting her he asked in a
cheerful and tender manner: “Madam Teresa do you want me as a
husband?” She blushed and was confused, yet with great dignity she
answered: “If it had pleased God that you should be my husband, he would
have had me borne your equal.” After which she went back into the room
and from that moment, she always tried to not be near him nor talk to him
either alone or with company. This flight or retreat was cruel to his heart
but he felt it less onerous when he realised it was genuinely due to the
simplicity of the young girl was without malice which in other women is
only artificially achieved by practice.
Wanting to legitimise his desire with the holy sacrament of marriage
and wishing to accelerate its achievement, he went one day to Saint Aniello
to see his confessor and spiritual father, and confessing him his secret
asked for his counsel. The good religious man astonished to hear such
unusual news gently answered him, trying to turn him away from that mad
enterprise with great authority and many reasons but he (La Cloche) put
them aside because as one can understand they differed strongly from his
wishes on the matter. However, he gave no sign of being persuaded even
though he did not answer, at last, more mortified than convinced, he
departed and never returned. The Priest seeing that he did not appear at
confession or communion as was his habit was shocked, thinking of the
affection that he (La Cloche) had shown him (the Priest) as a spiritual son
and as a gentleman of obvious goodness, he envisaged this would
effectively mean his (La Cloche’s) marriage and understood the truth
behind what followed.
The gentleman (La Cloche) thought perhaps that confiding the
enterprise to somebody who disapproves of it was not prudent or sensible.
He did not trust his first confessor and chose a new confessor. Whoever it
was, he promoted, negotiated and concluded this extraordinary marriage
having overcome the difficulties using letters and writings that belonged to
the Englishman, especially two noble testimonials from the Queen of
Sweden and the Father General of the Jesuits, which made clear his
parentage.
Before the marriage was to take place the groom wanting his bride to
be able to say that she had married with a dowry, he gave her a
considerable sum of money, but with unfortunate results because this
caused great suspicion leading to a rift in their sacred and chaste union.
The father of the bride, with great joy and little sense, vainly showed
various friends many gold coins and the news spread in Naples that in his
house there lived a foreigner, a forger of false coins. The Viceroy ordered
this noble foreigner to be arrested and with him were taken all the letters
and documents from which it became known that he was the son of the
king of England and news spread all over the city and large crowds went
to the house to see the bride, the Princess, “the little Queen”.
Meanwhile the young man was taken to the castle of Saint Elmo and the
jailer was ordered by the Viceroy to treat him with the greatest respect
which was done honouring him with the title due to a prince. The Viceroy
also ordered that the bride should be taken to a Nunnery which was also
done and whilst she was there she received every comfort and respect.
The gentleman (La Cloche) sent the Viceroy a letter asking him not to
spread the news of his identity and to set him free. He also wrote to the
General of the Jesuits, begging pardon for his amorous error and asking
him to use his influence with the Viceroy to let him travel to England by
way of Livorno (Leghorn) and Marseilles, leaving it to the prudent
judgement of his Most Reverend whether it would be better to conceal or to
make known the purpose of his secret mission. But his Excellency having
written to London about the matter, he wanted to await the reply and some
time passed before it arrived, but once it was clear what they contained
the prisoner was released and soon after he left Naples but I have no
information as to how and where he went…
th th
La Cloche and Teresa Corona were married on the 9 /19 February
1669, just a few short weeks after his arrival in Naples. Clearly a whirlwind
romance had taken place! It is notable that on his wedding certificate La
Cloche obscured his true name “James Stuart” amongst a longer
composite name, James Henry de Boveri de Rohan Stuart.
 “Henry de Rohan” was La Cloche’s travelling alias which Charles II
had instructed him to use on his journeys between Rome and London. De
Boveri is an Italianised corruption of D’Aubigny which was likely La
Cloche’s first alias when he was raised as a child in France, prior Charles II
recalling him to England in 1665 (see Annexe). The name La Cloche is not
mentioned on the marriage certificate because this was another alias used
prior to being instructed to travel under the alias of Henry de Rohan.
Shortly after his marriage, La Cloche was arrested and imprisoned by
the Viceroy of Naples. The English Agent in Rome (Joseph Kent, ) sent
regular despatches to the English Court. His reports were largely based on a
th rd
weekly newsletter, the “Gazzetta di Roma”. An edition dated the 13 /23
March 1669 first reported La Cloche’s arrest. Allowing say a week for the
news to travel from Naples to Rome and appear in the next edition of the
Gazzetta (issued weekly on Saturdays), La Cloche must have been arrested
th th th th
sometime after the wedding (9 /19 February 1669 )and the 6 /16 March
1669.
Andrew Lang’s history of James de La Cloche together with his article
in the Westminster Review provide a summary of the reports in the
Gazzetta Di Roma which agree in the main with Armanni’s detailed
th rd
account. On the 13 /23 March, the Gazzetta reported that an unknown
English Catholic gentleman had been living in Naples for some months and
had fallen in love with the daughter of an innkeeper and married her.
The father-in-law freely spent money that the groom gave him and
when the Viceroy heard of this large expenditure, he arrested the groom
who had 200 Doppie (£160), many jewels and some papers in which he
was addressed as “Highness.” The opinion in Naples was that he was a
natural son of the King of England.
th th
He was confined to the Chateau of St. Elme then on the 25 /6 April
1669, the Gazzetta reported that La Cloche had been moved to the Chateau
of Gaeta and that 50 Scudi (£20) per month has been provided for his needs
and that the Viceroy had written to England to ask what was to be done
with him.
Kent provided supplementary information in his letters to the English
Court which Lang describes as being founded on local gossip as they are
not reported in the Gazzetta or anywhere else …the Vice-king sent an
officer to seize upon his goods and coffers…many jewels of value, some
quantity of Pistoles, and some papers or letters directed to him with the
title of highness, for it seems he vaunted to be the King of England’s son,
born at Jersey, which circumstances invited the Vice-King's curiosity or
suspicion of his quality to imprison him in St. Elmo. It seems he could not
speak a word of English, nor give any account of the birth he pretended to.
Since, the Vice-King has removed him to the fortress at Gaeta, and shut his
wife (with child) in a monastery…
After La Cloche’s transfer to the Gaete prison, he sent two letters to
th th st
Cardinal Barberini. One dated the 27 March/6 April, the other the 31
th
March/10 April 1669. Any doubt that the person in gaol was James de la
Cloche (as claimed by some historians) is totally removed following the
recent discovery by Tarantino of two “gaol letters” in Cardinal Barberini’s
Archive which are signed “Jacques de La Cloche”. Until the discovery of
these two letters there was no incontrovertible proof that the prisoner in
Naples, James Henry de Boveri (Recte d’Aubigny) de Rohan Stuart and
James de La Cloche, who had enrolled at the Jesuit seminary in Rome in
April 1668 were the one and same person as. Prior to this evidence, the
hoax theorists were able to claim that the Naples Prince were different
people, possibly someone who stole La Cloche’s identity and documents or
even La Cloche’s accomplice.
In the two “gaol letters” La Cloche explained to Cardinal Barberini that
after six months at the Jesuit Seminary in Rome he was sent to London on a
secret mission. That he had returned to Rome in the early days of
December 1668 and had gone to Naples to over-winter and recover his
strength before returning to England in Spring. That he was arrested whilst
making his preparations in Naples to depart for London on a secret mission
and needed to return to England before the end of spring to complete very
important business. He explained that he had been imprisoned first in the
Chateau de St. Elme but was then moved to the Chateau of Gaete during
the first week of April 1669. La Cloche asked Barberini to speak to the
Father General of the Jesuits who would confirm La Cloche’s mission. La
Cloche pleaded with Barberini to obtain his release from prison so he could
continue with his mission to London, passing by Paris to collect a Priest
who he had left in France during his previous voyage to London.
La Cloche believed that Barberini was unaware of his secret mission to
England, however given that Barberini had special papal responsibility for
Catholic affairs in Great Britain and Ireland, it is possible that unbeknown
to La Cloche, the Father General of the Jesuits had revealed La Cloche’s
mission to Barberini. The two “gaol letters” were not written immediately
after La Cloche’s imprisonment, but Armanni informs us that La Cloche
had also written to the Father General of the Jesuits and possibly due to no
response he had next written to the Cardinal.
st th
On the 1 /11 June 1669 the Gazzetta Di Roma reported that La Cloche
had been released after first being moved from the Gaeta prison to the
th th
Vicaria prison (a common prison). On the 6 /16 June, Kent informed the
English Court …the gentleman who would have been his Majesty’s bastard
at Naples, upon receipt of his Majesty’s letters the Viceroy intended to have
him whipped about the city, but appeals were made by his wife’s family to
the Vice queen who in compassion to her and her kindred prevailed with the
Viceroy to deliver him from that shame and so ends the story of this fourbe
who speaks no language but French….
It is notable that Kent’s report here departs significantly from Armanni’s
detailed account which makes no mention of any imposter or punishment.
Given that La Cloche was released from prison and freely allowed to leave
Naples and even to return there just two months later in August 1669, it is
difficult to conclude anything other than the Viceroy had received a
positive response about La Cloche, whether from the English Court, the
Father General of the Jesuits or Cardinal Barberini. Lang suggested that the
whipping and its subsequent cancellation was merely a rumour put about
by the Governor for public consumption to conceal that La Cloche was not
a natural son of the King of England which conveniently allowed La
Cloche to discreetly continue on his secret mission to London under the
travelling alias of Henry de Rohan. In this respect it is notable that the
Armani account specifically mentioned that La Cloche pleaded with the
Viceroy not to reveal his true identity.
La Cloche was absent from Naples for nearly two months and soon after
his return there in August 1669, he fell ill. The last paragraphs of Armani’s
letter describe La Cloche’s tragic return to Naples.
…A few months after leaving (Naples), he (La Cloche) returned to
Naples. He had a promissory note for fifty thousand Scudi and intended to
take his wife and in-laws to Venice, but death cut short his plans. He caught
a violent fever which worsened making both he and the doctors realise that
it was fatal. He devoutly asked for the Last Rites and, even though he was
gravely ill, insisted on receiving them out of bed on his knees with such
devotion and piety that those around him were moved to tenderness whilst
the wife dissolved in tears and left her soul with him.
Having humbly and gently declared his piety and received the
Sacrament of last rites he gave his soul up to the Creator. The purity of his
religious heart, as well as the truth of his high status appeared more clearly
in his last will and testament which he had previously made and which
seems to me to contain some curious facts which I share with your
Illustrious Excellency at the end of this letter having reverently kissed your
hand…
st st
On the 21 /31 August 1669 Kent informed the English Court …that
certain fellow or whatever he was, who claimed to be his Majesty’s natural
son at Naples is dead and having made his will, I shall have it the next post
and we will know the truth of his quality…
Kent’s final letter included a translation of the La Cloche’s will and
provided additional information about La Cloche’s mother …the certain
person at Naples who in his lifetime claimed to be his Majesty’s natural son
is dead in the same confidence and princely humour for having left his
Lady, Teresa Corona an ordinary person seven month pregnant, he made
his will and the King of France is to be executor. He had been absent some
time claiming a journey to France to visit his mother Lady Mary Stuart of
his Majesty’s royal family whose nearness and greatness of blood was the
cause says he that his Majesty would never acknowledge him for his son.
His mother Lady Mary Stuart was it seems dead before he came into
France…
La Cloche’s mother has already been identified as Mary Stuart, the
Duchess of Richmond. During 1669 she was indeed residing in France and
still a senior lady in waiting to the dowager Queen Henriette-Marie.
However, the Duchess did not die in 1669. It was the dowager Queen who
st th
died on the 1 /11 September 1669, just a week after La Cloche’s death,
hence the possible confusion. The Duchess lived on until 1685 after
returning to England.
It is notable that in one of his letters to the Father General of the Jesuits,
Charles II proposed a similar cover story to explain La Cloche’s absence
from Rome. The Father General was told to say that La Cloche had gone to
visit a fictive mother who wished to become a Catholic. It is thus possible
that La Cloche’s alleged journey to France to visit his mother was a simple
recasting of this cover story to conceal that following his release from
prison La Cloche had travelled to London to complete his mission.
La Cloche’s last will and testament is a lengthy document and a précis
is provided below. It makes incredible reading, especially when it is borne
in mind that either La Cloche was indeed the eldest natural son of Charles
II and Mary Stuart, Duchess of Richmond or he was a hoaxer…
I, James Stuart, natural son to Charles the second Stuart…King of
Great Britain or England, King of Scotland and Ireland, born of the Lady
Mary Stuart, of the family of the Barons of St. Mars...sound in mind and
in perfect sense…have made this my present testament...
… that my body be buried in the Church of…St. Francisco di Paula
outside the Capuan Gate of this City of Naples…where afterwards a Tomb
may be raised, for the Expenses of which tomb I will that there be employed
400 Crowns (£100)…
…there be paid to the said Monastery of St. Francis di Paula…another
600 ducats (£480), for the celebration of a weekly mass forever for my soul,
and my funeral shall be private, at the expense of Signr Francesco, my
Father-in-Law, as I have taken care with the Reverend Father Antonio di
Gagliano…my Spiritual Father…
…I name…as my heirs general…that shall be borne of Donna Teresa,
my most beloved Consort, at present great with child, with whom I
th
contracted a solemn and Lawful marriage the 19 February in the year
1669, in the Parish of Sta Zuzia…and grant all that does or shall belong to
me from…his Majesty of Great Britain, my natural Father, or the said Lady
Marie Stuart, my mother.
…I humbly entreat his Majesty of Britain that he would remit into the
hands of my male or female Issue…born of the said Lady D. Teresa
Corona…the usual principality either of Wales or Monmouth, or of such
other provinces which are normally conferred on the natural sons of the
Crown, to the value of 100,000 Crowns (£25,000) Revenue or Rent…
beseeching him…not to take anything from them which have been given or
does belong to them;
and also I Pray his Majesty of Britain that…he would cause to be
restored and assigned to my heirs…80,000 Crowns (£20,000) rent
belonging to the said Lady Marie Stuart, my most beloved Mother, being
her proper stock…which his Majesty cannot upon any pretence take away
or deprive him of, as being my mother's Estate, to which I ought to
succeed…she having no other child in any degree of succession. But if it
happens that…any alienation has been made by his Majesty to the sum of
80,000 Crowns (£20,000) rent belonging to my said mother, which yet I
cannot believe, I beseech him he would please to assign to…my heirs a like
proportion of Rent…in some other place, and not suffer his blood to go
wandering about the world without means to live…
Also…if, the posthumous issue which shall be borne of my wife, now
great with child, shall not be borne alive, which God forbid, or die as soon
as born or under age, the said Lady D. Teresa, my most beloved wife, shall
succeed to the yearly Rent of the 180,000 Crowns (£45,000)…of my
mother…and if the said principality (Wales or Monmouth)…cannot be
separated from the blood Royal, shall upon the death of my said wife return
again to his Britannic Majesty…
My son’s Godfather…(is to be)…Louis XIV…, King of France…
beseeching him…not to refuse me, but to favour his poor Kinsman…
I recommend also to his most Christian Majesty (Louis XIV) Signr
Francesco Corona, a Gentleman of Sora, and (his family)…in all five
persons…beseeching him to be pleased to have particular care of their
persons. To the said five…
I assign a stock of 50,000 Crowns (£12,500) for one time, beseeching
his most Christian Majesty (Louis XIV) to cause his Majesty of Great
Britain to pay it, besides the 180,000 Crowns (£45,000) of yearly Revenue
which I have assigned to my heirs.
… I beseech his most Christian Majesty to act with his Majesty of
Britain, that all Legacies and disposals made by me…may be satisfied and
put in Execution very punctually…
Moreover I desire his most Christian Majesty …to use all means for and
to procure from his Britannic Majesty satisfaction of the said Legacies…
and in case it be otherwise…the said 291,000 Crowns may be secured…
I assign and give up with full and ample power my land and Marquisate
de Duvignis (D’Aubigny) to the value of 300,000 Crowns, (£75,000)…
To my little Page Antonio Brenich I assign 5,000 Crowns (£1,250) for
one time, for his faithful, diligent and long serving royal service.
I assign to…my Spiritual Father, ten thousand Crowns (£2,500), and to
the Revd Father Francesco Feliciano di Hinano of the same Religion five
thousand Crowns (£1,250)…for as much as I have confided in both of them
respectively and trusted, in Confession and under Seal of Secrecy which
this my intention and confidence, which I desire to have kept very Secret, so
that neither of them can or ought to Reveal it to any person living, it being
a thing entrusted to them upon Confession, and for other neither can nor
ought to be revealed.
…And for the above said Legacies made by me, which altogether
amount to the sum of 291,000 ducats, I…beseech…his Majesty of Britain
that he would give some gift to my said Legatees…and all this over and
above the said yearly Rent of 180,000 Crowns (£45,000) given to my
heirs...
Also I order and expressly command that the said Lady D. Teresa, my
wife, shall for ever preserve herself a widow, of which I am well secured.
Also I desire…the said Sigr Franco Corona, in acknowledgment of what
I have disposed of to his benefit and to his house, that after any death he
shall…go barefoot to the Archiepiscopal Church of Naples, where, being
prostrate on his face to the Earth before the most holy Sacrament, he shall
with all humility and devotion pray…to pardon me my sins, and
afterwards…the same…to the Chappel of St. Aspremo… then in the same
manner to go to the monastery of St. Franco di Paula…where is to be
erected my Tomb…to make the same prayers, which are to continue at the
least a quarter of an hour in every place….
I order that …my wife's kindred shall place…my wife's sister, in a
monastery qualified for noble Ladies, and give the said monastery 5,000
Crowns (£1,250)…
And since my intention has been and is that this my present disposal
shall not be made known till after my death to any person living, for which
reason I have caused this my testament to be closed and sealed up…I order
that if by any accident this my disposal shall come to be discovered to any
person, and shall be public either in the whole or in …part…in this case, if
the Revd Father I Antonio de Gagliano, my Confessor, shall hear of such
Publication…go to the Notary who made my present Testament, to cause
him to replace it…with a will that…I make in writing apart to the said
Father…
And lastly, I leave to the Notary, for the pains he has taken in this my
will, what is usually given him at the time of opening it, and for the making
the copy thereof, obliging the above said Sigr Franco Corona, when he
shall have received all the monies mentioned in my said testament, to give
him fifty ducats more for one time only.
(Signed) Don Giacomo (James) Stuart, affirm all that is above written.

Endorsement (possibly by William Kent): The last will of the late

Impostor at Naples, who at first pretended himself to be a natural son of the
King of England. 1669.
Translated from a contemporary notarial translation, the original will
being in Italian.

La Cloche claimed the title and estate of the Lordship of Aubigny,

through his mother, the Mary, Duchess of Richmond (La Cloche mentions
in his will that his mother had no other surviving children). It is notable that
Mary, Duchess of Richmond’s last surviving legitimate child had indeed
died a year earlier in 1668 and her brother-in-law, Abbot Ludovic the
previous holder had also died childless. However, La Cloche was clearly
unaware that Abbot Ludovic had wrongly acquired the Aubigny title and
that it had been agreed that on the Abbot’s death, the Aubigny title would
pass to the rightful heir the Abbot’s nephew and nine months before La
Cloche died, on the 31st December 1668, again quite unknown to La
Cloche, Louis XIV formally ratified this agreement and granted the
Aubigny title to Charles Stuart the nephew of Abbot Ludovic Stuart.
Nevertheless, La Cloche’s claim to the Aubigny title was based on an
ostentatiously sound basis and not the wild unfounded audacious claim of a
hoaxer, as claimed by many historians.
Of greater relevance to this Cold Case Review of course is whether La
Cloche was a hoaxer or not and did his journey between Naples and
London in June and July 1669 have any connection with the arrest of
Eustache Danger, the Man in the Iron Mask in Calais at the end of July
1669?

6
Chapter 11 – Knave or Prince

Chapter 11
Knave or prince

There is a growing body of evidence in support of La Cloche’s claim

that he was the eldest son of Charles II, King of England. There is also
other evidence which disproves previous claims by some historians that he
was a hoaxer.
Armanni’s vivid account of La Cloche during his Naples adventure, not
least his death-bed posture of a devout religious person, is in total contrast
to that of a master hoaxer. La Cloche’s last will and testament is all the
more poignant when considered that it was made just two days before he
died, making it difficult to comprehend that if La Cloche was a hoaxer, then
why, during the final days of his life did he persist with such an elaborate
hoax and produce a preposterous last will and testament which would have
been nothing more than a perverse and cruel valedictory insult to his loving
wife and unborn child.
The history of James de La Cloche and Charles II’s secret stalled
negotiations for the religious conversion of his kingdoms to the Catholic
faith in 1663, were not revealed to the world until 1863 when Father Boero,
published his research in the Vatican Archives. Boero was convinced that
the documents in the la Cloche dossier held at the Jesuit Archive in Rome
were genuine. However his conclusion was arrived at in the main, by
comparing Charles II’s various signatures on the certificates and letters
with a tracing of a signature supplied by the English Public Record Office,
from when Charles was a young Prince of Wales, some twenty years before
the 1669 letters (Nb. The handwriting of the body text of the letters and
certificates are quite different to Charles II’s handwriting, however the
documents were likely drafted by one of Charles II’s trusted confidants for
signing.
The renown historian Lingard was asked at the time to examine
transcripts of the La Cloche dossier and he dismissed them as forgeries and
many historians have subsequently relied on Lingard’s opinion. However, a
critical re-examination of Lingard’s findings reveals that they are far from
reliable (see Annexe). Lingard’s examination does not meet modern day
investigative standards or provide irrefutable evidence that the La Cloche
documents are forgeries. Furthermore, his analysis did not involve any
forensic examination of the physical documents, being based solely on
internal evidence therein.
Lingard’s conclusion is mainly founded on an unreasonable expectation
that the two certificates signed by Charles II (La Cloche’s certificate of
recognition and passport) should have been drafted to the same legal
standard as certain official royal document to which the Great Seal of
England have been affixed. Nevertheless, Lingard did correctly identify
two apparent inconsistencies, a) Charles II’s Mother, the dowager queen,
Henrietta-Marie (who is mentioned several times in the letters) was not in
England in 1668 and b) the place of letter-signing (the locum) as stated on
the 1665 certificate of recognition was incorrect. Yet in both these
instances, reasonable and rational explanations can be provided for these
inconsistencies (see Annexe).
In the early twentieth century, the historian Lord Acton provided an
opinion on the La Cloche documents. He thought that La Cloche was
genuine, but that the Naples Prince was a hoaxer who stole La Cloche’s
money, papers and identity. Acton’s opinion was put forward without any
supporting evidence and has since been totally disproved following
Tarantino’s discovery of the two “gaol letters” in the Barberini archive
which prove beyond doubt that James de La Cloche and the Naples Prince
were the one and same person.
In the 1960s Washington personally examined the La Cloche dossier at
the Jesuit Archive. He wrote …to my joy (there) were King Charles’s
letters; each one as far as I could judge, in his genuine handwriting, with
the familiar diamond shaped royal seal which the merry monarch reserved
for his especially private correspondence…
Washington however felt obliged to later retract this positive opinion
when the Secretary of the London Public Record Office informally
pronounced …for what it is worth and in my personal opinion…the
handwriting of Washington’s two samples were not by the same hand and
that in neither of them did the writing resemble samples of handwriting of
Charles II kept at the PRO… Besides not a formal forensic examination,
the Secretary of the Public Records Office only examined two mediocre
facsimile extracts from Charles II’s letters held at the Jesuit archive and
such non-expert opinion is not conclusive. In any case, as already
mentioned, a trusted scribe likely drafted the letters which Charles II
signed. Washington some years later added that he believed that Queen
Christina’s letters were forgeries, however one of these letters was a merely
a copy written in la Cloche’s own hand.
In the 1970s, Marcel Pagnol, the French playwright, film director,
author and latterly historical detective, submitted facsimiles of some of the
La Cloche documents to two graphologists for analysis. They concluded
that the documents were forgeries. However, one expert reached his
conclusion on the questionable grounds that the letters were “muddy” in
style whilst the other expert claimed that the handwriting was different to
letters written by Charles II to Madame held at the French Archives.
Besides the fact that letters in the Jesuit archive were likely drafted by one
of Charles II’s trusted advisors, comparing them with Charles II’s letters to
Madame, is like comparing chalk and cheese. Charles II’s letters to
Madame are in English, informal in style and often dashed off just before
Charles II went to dine or for a walk, whereas the letters to the Father
General of the Jesuits are in French, carefully composed, well written and
formal in style. The complex subject matter addressed required particular
attention to detail to ensure that at a great distance, Charles II’s intricate
instructions were properly communicated.
In the 1990s, Baldwin examined the La Cloche dossier at the Jesuit
Archives. He believed that he was the fourth person to be granted
permission to view the dossier since Father Boero first revealed them to the
world. Baldwin never published a detailed report which is understandable
given that he was researching a broader subject and his examination of the
La Cloche documents formed just a small part of this project. Baldwin
however compared the handwriting of Queen Christina of Sweden against
other manuscripts in the Jesuit archive and concluded that they were
genuine. He also examined Charles II’s certificates including the seals and
watermarks but was unable to give any definitive opinion thereon. Baldwin
concluded that a …Close examination…supports the conclusion that the
whole de La Cloche collection cannot be dismissed as forgeries…if a
reliable process of testing could be devised that would show the veracity or
otherwise of these documents, it would be of the greatest value…
If La Cloche was a master hoaxer, what did he stand to gain? According
to Charles II’s alleged promissory note in the Jesuit Archive, at best La
Cloche might have received £800 from the Jesuits for travelling expenses
which was a considerable sum in 1668. A significant number of bright and
intelligent individuals believed that La Cloche was a natural son of Charles
II, not least, the Father General of the Jesuits, Queen Christina of Sweden,
Cardinal Barberini and Cardinal Azzolini.
The 1665 certificate of recognition required La Cloche to comply with
Charles II’s command and keep his existence a secret for the peace of the
kingdom (at least until the King’s death). La Cloche in the main complied
with these instructions and kept a low profile. He used various aliases and
did not reveal his secret to anyone other than Queen Christina, two
cardinals in Rome, the Father General of the Jesuits and his religious
confessors. When he married in February 1669, La Cloche even buried his
real name (James Stuart) amongst a string of aliases.
La Cloche’s own handwriting is quite different to Charles II’s four
letters and two certificates, so if he was a hoaxer, he must have had a
talented accomplice to forge these documents. Furthermore, a comparison
of the content of Charles II’s four letters held at the Jesuit Archive with
events at this time (August 1668), when Charles II was elaborating his
Grand Design, reveals that La Cloche (the hoaxer) would needed to have
been aware (at a distance of over 1000 miles) that a) Charles II had just
recently resurrected his plans for religious conversion (now part of the
Grand Design), b) that Madame and Louis XIV were newly privy to this
plan and c) be aware of Charles II’s uncertainty as to whether he should
inform the Pope about the Grand Design. Furthermore, a cross-check of the
dates of Charles II’s letters against travel times and the two different
calendars in use, has not thrown up any evidence that proves that La Cloche
was a hoaxer.
Most important, the “hoax theorists” have not provided any irrefutable
evidence that the La Cloche documents in the Jesuit Archive are forgeries
or that La Cloche was a hoaxer (See Annex). The hoax theorists argue that
La Cloche revealed his identity to the Governor of Naples, but Kent said
that his identity was only stated in documents that were found in La
Cloche’s possession when he was arrested …papers or letters directed
(addressed) to him with the title of highness, for it seems he vaunted to be
the King of England’s son, born at Jersey… Likewise, Armanni’s letter
mentions that prior to his arrest in Naples, La Cloche did not reveal his
identity to anyone and that his true identity only came to light after his
arrest when the royal certificates were discovered. Armanni also informs us
that La Cloche pleaded with the Governor of Naples not to reveal to anyone
the secret of his birth.
Furthermore, La Cloche’s last will and testament in which he formally
revealed that he was James Stuart, son of Charles II, was made under a seal
of secrecy in full knowledge of his impending demise which occurred just a
few days later. The will and testament contained precise instructions for it
to become void should La Cloche’s lawyer or anybody else reveal its
contents prior to his demise.
An examination by the author of facsimile copies of the La Cloche
dossier held at the Vatican archives has uncovered two letters written in La
Cloche’s own hand which have previously been overlooked by researchers,
which throw new light on the history. Research by the author into La
Cloche’s claim that he was the natural son of Charles II with a Mary Stuart
“of the royal blood”, has revealed that his mother was Mary Stuart (née
Villiers), the Duchess of Richmond. This, together with the two “gaol
letters” recently discovered by Tarantino in the Barberini Archive, provides
a far greater insight into the La Cloche history and which disproves claims
by earlier historians that La Cloche was a hoaxer.
Clearly more research is still required on this intriguing subject. In the
meantime, did La Cloche’s voyages between Naples and London in June
and July 1669 have any connection with the arrest of Eustache Danger, the
Man in the Iron Mask in Calais at the end of July 1669? The writer Andrew
th
Lang openly pondered at the beginning of the 20 century …One marvels
that nobody has recognised, in the mask(ed prisoner), James Stuart (La
Cloche), eldest of the children of Charles II. He came to England in 1668,
was sent to Rome, and disappears from history…
What did happen after la Cloche’s release from prison and departure
from Naples? Armani says that La Cloche left Naples in early June 1669
and returned there in early August 1669 and died there later that same
month. La Cloche clearly cannot possibly be Eustache Danger. However
the timing of La Cloche’s release from gaol and return to Naples certainly
allowed time for La Cloche to complete his mission to England, collecting
on route the Priest waiting for him in Paris and then travelling to London
via Calais shortly before Eustache Danger’s arrest there at the end of July
1669.
Intriguingly. it is known from his last will and testament that La Cloche
had a valet/page, but according to the same document he must have
returned to Naples with La Cloche as he was left a gratuity in the Will.
There is little doubt that the Priest waiting for La Cloche in Paris existed,
th
he is mentioned in four documents, Charles II’s letter dated the 18
November 1668, La Cloche’s two “gaol letters” and Armanni’s letter in
which the Priest is specifically identified to be La Cloche’s “original”
Spiritual Director.
In search of a working hypothesis, it could be supposed that the Priest
waiting in Paris equally had a valet who, whilst travelling with La Cloche
and the Priest, discovered La Cloche’s identity or details of his secret
mission to Charles II. It could be further supposed that in late June 1669,
after collecting the Priest in Paris, La Cloche, the Priest and their valets
travelled from Paris to Calais and there the Priest’s valet was instructed to
remain and await the Priest’s return while he travelled to London with la
Cloche and his valet. One could further imagine that on arriving at the
English Court, La Cloche informed Charles II that he had since married and
wished to leave the Jesuits, and return to Naples to collect his wife and take
her to live a peaceful life elsewhere. It could be further supposed that
Charles II at this point decided to terminate his secret correspondence with
the Jesuits as recommended by Madame, his sister especially as his secret
negotiations for the Grand Design were making good progress with Louis
XIV and Madame had previously written to Charles II recommending him
not to inform the Pope just yet about the Grand Design. Charles II gave La
Cloche a promissory note for a significant amount of money so that he
could return to his wife and live out his life in relative luxury. Both the
Jesuit Priest and La Cloche could be relied upon to be discrete, but the
Priest’s valet, still waiting in Calais, was aware of La Cloche’s identity or
his secret mission to the English Court, so Charles II decided to inform
Louis XIV who had the valet arrested and secretly moved to Pignerol to
prevent him from ever revealing anything about what he had seen or knew.
Whilst this hypothesis is theoretically possible, it falls into the same
trap, like so many other solutions put forward over the centuries to resolve
the identity of the Man in the Iron Mask. It uses the limited facts that are
known and depends on several unproven inter-dependent suppositions all
made without any supporting evidence whatsoever. To support this
hypothesis, it must first be established beyond doubt that La Cloche was
not a hoaxer. Even then, there is no evidence that the Priest waiting in Paris
had a valet, or that the valet had discovered anything about La Cloche’s
mission or had even been left behind waiting in Calais. Despite the
tempting possibility that the Man in the Iron Mask might somehow be
connected with the history of James de La Cloche, given the absence of any
concrete evidence, it is necessary to abandon this intriguing history and
search elsewhere to find someone whose candidacy for the Man in the Iron
Mask is founded on irrefutable evidence.
Two other lines of enquiry that are worthy of further examination are
the tragic adventure of Roux de Marcilly and the secret negotiations for
Charles II’s Grand Design. Both these histories have a common
connection, Colbert de Croissy, the French Ambassador to the English
court!

6
Chapter 26 Suspicions

Chapter 12
Suspicions

Following Roux’s capture, Charles II had every reason to be concerned

that this could have a serious impact on the secret negotiations for the
Grand Design. The French already had proof of Arlington’s involvement
with Roux from Ruvigny’s report and they now had Roux’s papers which
th th
has been seized. On the 15 May/25 May 1669, Louis XIV personally
wrote to Croissy advising him of Roux’s capture and instructed him to
carefully observe the reactions of key members at the English Court to his
announcement of Roux’s capture, Lord Arlington in particular …I have
finally succeeded in arresting Roux…in Switzerland at ten or twelve
leagues within their country on returning from a visit to Colonel Balthazar,
to whom he had said that he would soon leave to return to England. I have
had him brought to Paris where he arrived yesterday and I know that from
his face he appears more dead than alive. He has said while passing
through Lyon that he had great things to tell me that he could only confide
to me…It would be beneficial that on announcing the news of his arrest
you take great care to observe the faces of the principal characters of
your court and the manner in which they receive it. You must begin by
relating it first to Arlington, because if he learns of it beforehand from
someone else, there would be no element of surprise, for you to observe
the reaction of his body by this surprise…
However, mail from the French Court to England was systematically
arriving several days late. The Ordinary Post between London and Paris
typically took four or five days if sea conditions, tides and winds were
favourable, however Croissy’s mail was taking as long as eleven days to
arrive due to the English intercepting and decoding them. Croissy provided
the French Court with a record of the arrival dates of mail and in Mid-May
confirmed to the French Court that the English were indeed intercepting
mail from France. Ordinarily Croissy should have received Louis XIV’s
th th
letter announcing Roux’s capture about the 20 /30 May, but it was not
th th
delivered until the 27 May/6 June, seven days later.
This delay permitted Charles II to remain a step ahead of Croissy and be
the one to inform Croissy of Roux’s capture and of course provide a
convenient explanation as to how Roux had been innocuously used by the
English. Charles II, attended a meeting of the Foreign Committee on the
rd nd
23 May/2 June, to discuss Roux’s capture. your Majesty had made a
union with Holland for making the Peace betwixt the two Crowns (France
and Spain) and when it was probable the opposition to the Peace would be
on the side of France. Marcilly (Roux) was heard telling of long things but
no proposition was made to him or by him. Presently the Peace was made
and Roux told more plainly we had no use of him. A little sum of money was
given him to return as he said whither he was to go in Switzerland. Upon
which he wishing his Majesty would renew his alliance with the Cantons he
was answered that his Majesty would not enter into any commerce with
them till they had sent the regicides out of their Country, he undertook it
should be done…Seven or eight months after without any intimation given
to him from hence or any expectation of him, he comes hither, but was so
coldly used I was complained of for not using so important a man well
enough. I answered I saw no use the King could make of him, because he
had no credit in Switzerland and for anything else I thought him worth
nothing to us, but above all because I knew by many circumstances that he
was another man’s spy and so ought not to be paid by his Majesty.
Notwithstanding this his Majesty being moved from compassion
commanded he should have some money given him to carry him away and
that I should write to Monsieur Balthazar thanking him in the King's name
for the good offices he rendered in advancing a good understanding betwixt
his Majesty and the Cantons and desiring him to continue them in all
occasions...The man (Roux) was always looked upon as a hot headed and
indiscreet man, and so accordingly handled, hearing him but never trusting
him with anything but his own tendered and undesired endeavours to get
the Regicides sent out of Switzerland...
Arlington was certainly being economical with the truth in his report.
He was fully aware of Roux’s plan to stage an uprising against Louis XIV.
Ruvigny advised the French King, that Roux had even discussed with
Arlington which parts of France would be offered to Charles II and the
Duke of York ...He (Roux) says that he has persuaded Lord Arlington …
that France is ready to rise in revolt… After more than thirty meetings, it is
agreed that the King of England would have Guyenne, Poitou, Brittany and
Normandy and that the Duke of York would have Sovereignty over
Provence, Dauphiné and Languedoc…
Charles II now sought to ensure that Roux’s capture did not negatively
impact the Grand Design and disowned Roux, informing the French Court
that he had only been used by the English to try and persuade the Swiss
Cantons to give up the English Regicides who were sheltering in their
country.
After the Council meeting, Charles II had a meeting with Croissy who
was until then quite unaware of Roux’s capture. Croissy informed the
French Court …Having been yesterday to Whitehall to see the King, hardly
had I entered in his chamber and he had everybody leave, even the Duke of
York. He said to me that he had learnt that a Frenchman from Languedoc
named Roux had been arrested in Switzerland and brought to the Bastille
by order of his Majesty, and that as he had been some time in England and
made propositions to my Lord Arlington, he was quite happy to inform me
of the truth in of the matter…Roux had wanted to convince Lord Arlington
that he had lots of credit in the Protestant Swiss Cantons, and said to him
that as there had always been an alliance between the Cantons and the
Kings of England and, he knew that it would be greatly approved if he
could arrange matters for a renewal of this alliance and to have them
accepted into the Triple Alliance between England, the Dutch and the
Swedish…Arlington replied to him that if the Swiss desired an alliance with
the King his master, it was necessary that before anything they place back
under his (Charles II’s) control the authors (The Regicides) of the death of
the late king (Charles I) his father, to whom they had given harbour and
protection (the Regicides).
He (Roux) led one (Arlington) to believe that he would easily obtain
this, if it pleased the King to grant him a commission to return to
Switzerland in the capacity of royal envoy…Arlington, had appreciated
through all his conversations with him that this was a man upon which one
could not place great store, having spurned him, of which he made great
complaint, and that finally in order to dismiss him and give him the means
of going where he would, he had fifty pieces given to him. I omit other
minor particulars which were intended to persuade me that this villain went
away from Arlington most discontent and to alleviate any suspicion that
this Minister had had any secret negotiations with him above all regarding
the horrible plans that one says here that he is accused...
…I informed Charles II that I had no information from your Majesty
(Louis XIV) about this person who had been arrested, that I thanked him
most humbly for this information which he had kindly given to me and
assured him that your Majesty would be most obliged…I next saw
Arlington who told me the same thing as the King on the subject of the
imprisonment of Roux, adding only that he had sent detailed information to
Mr Montague on all that Roux had said and negotiated here with him, in
order that if he was not telling the truth the ambassador could let him
know…
Croissy signed off his letter, expressing his joy about the news …I am
not able to express the joy that I felt on learning that Roux has finally been
captured. I hope that he will reveal to you many important things of service
to the King. It seemed to me that Lord Arlington was concerned…
The English response to Roux’s arrest was sent to Montague, the
English Ambassador in Paris who passed it to the French Court. Charles II
also wrote to Madame, clearly cpncerned that the matter did not have a
negative impact on the secret negotiations …You have I hope received full
satisfaction by the last post in the matter of Marcillac(Roux de Marcilly),
for my Lord Arlington has sent to Mr. Montague his history all the time he
was here, by which you will see how little credit he had here, and that
particularly my Lord Arlington was not in his good graces, because he did
not receive that satisfaction, in his negotiation he expected, and that was
only in relation to the Swiss, and so I think I have said enough of this
matter….
th th
On the 27 May/6 June Croissy finally received Louis XIV’s letter
announcing Roux’s capture, which had been intercepted and delayed by the
English. He was clearly unable to implement Louis XIV’s instructions to
make a surprise announcement to members of the English Court in order to
observe their reactions. Croissy, was now totally convinced that the English
st
were intercepting and deciphering dispatches from France and on the 31
th
May/10 June he informed the French Court …I have previously reported
to your Majesty about what the King and Lord Arlington said to me
concerning the imprisonment of Roux. They knew about it here eight days
before I received the letter from your Majesty. Thus, you will realise that
they were well prepared about what they had to inform me…I clearly see
that all letters (from France) that are handed to me, regardless to which
address they are sent, are opened and it appears that they (the English)
have found the means to decipher them…
Throughout the rest of May and June 1669 diplomatic mail addressed to
Croissy arrived late. Croissy informed the French court …The despatch of
th th
your Majesty of the 15 /25th May that I should have received the 20 /30th
th
May was only delivered on Thursday 27 May/6th June along with those of
th th
Monsieur de Lionne dated the 25 May/4th June and the 29 May/8th June
and delivered so late that it was not possible to decode them before the
departure of the ordinary post. It appeared to me that the seal had been
tampered with and the merchant to whom it was addressed also told me
that the packet in which it was contained had been opened. Thus, I see now
that the change of address does not give any guarantee from the curiosity of
the (English) Ministers and as I fear that my code has been intercepted…
The mail service was so insecure that Croissy informed Louis XIV …I
will shortly send a special courier to inform your Majesty more about the
business that he has confided to me and of the new measures that I will take
to prevent that the correspondence that I receive and send cannot be seen
in future…. Croissy’s solution was the construction of a coding machine
which Sire de la Hillière would take deliver to the French Court …I believe
it is necessary to develop a more difficult code and I will try to send it at
the end of the week by Sire de la Hillière….
Charles II, next undertook a charm offensive to persuade Croissy that
st
the English had no knowledge at all of Roux’s intrigues. On the 31
th
May/12 June Croissy informed Louis XIV …The King (Charles II) having
done me the honour to take me to the races with him, he told me that he had
written to his Ambassador (Montague) on all that this man (Roux) had
done here in order to inform your Majesty about it and repeated again to
me that he (Roux) had only negotiated for the Swiss to enter in to the Triple
Alliance and that he (Roux) was badly satisfied with my Lord Arlington.
There is nobody else in the Court who knew him (Roux) or who swears to
know him and in fact one assures me that he had frequent and secret
conferences only with Lord Arlington and the Spanish Ambassador. The
Duke of York only knew about him because he (Roux) had addressed
himself to one of his officers and so learned that he was intriguing to
receive the Swiss into the League (Triple Alliance) …
th th
Finally on the 29 May/8 June Montague, the English Ambassador at
the French Court, reported to Arlington that Louis XIV was satisfied that
the English had no involvement in Roux’s intrigues …As for the business of
Marcilly (Roux), I think this (French) court has reason to be extremely
satisfied with the King (Charles II) and all his ministers, and Mr Ruvigny
has done his majesty (Charles II) and his ministers that right as to say he
did not think him (Roux) trusted or employed by anybody in England and
his justification is very good in this case for he (Ruvigny) owns to having
informed against him (Roux) but it was upon the commerce he discovered
he had with the Spanish ambassador and the Baron d’Isola…
In June, Croissy learnt next that one of Roux’s accomplices was in
London and actively plotting against the French King and he gave an
urgent letter to Sire de la Hillière to deliver to the French Court. …I have
just received information concerning Roux which might be used against
him and be of embarrassment to him. I have confided it to Sire de la
Hillière who will inform you about it…for the past six or seven months
there has been (in London) a person named Verras who is from Languedoc,
and of the Protestant religion, who often frequents the said Roux de
Marcilly, in such a manner that one does nothing without the participation
of the other and they have been up all night coding together...Verras calls
himself envoy of those of the Protestant faith in France, he is protected by
the Count d’Orrery who is employed on matters in Ireland on account of
proposals that the said Verras made to him about bringing a number of
French to the said country. He (Verras) often frequents the home of the
Duke of Buckingham and my Lord Arlington and he has also been to the
residence of the Spanish Ambassador. The attached paper which contains a
draft of requests from the religious people of France to the King of Great
Britain has been taken from the said Verras and is written from what one
assures me by his hand which Roux will recognise…The person who
provides this information says that neither of them (Roux and Verras) have
the mandate of the Protestants of France whatever they may have said and
that they have only been considered here on the letters of Colonel
Balthazar. One might interrogate Roux on all these things…
Sire de la Hillière would have arrived at the French Court, just before
Roux’s final interrogation took place. No doubt, when confronted by
Ruvigny who had witnessed Roux’s revelations at Morland’s residence,
plus the recent revelations about his associations with Verras in London,
Roux would have realised that the game was now up and that he could only
expect a traitor’s death.
Sire de la Hillière also carried a coded letter to Madame in which
Charles II set out his latest thoughts on the Grand Design. The main ports
in England were to be secured and Charles II boasted how he might profit
from church lands that had been confiscated over the centuries following
the English Reformation. Charles II once again expressed his deep desire to
have revenge on the Dutch with Louis XIV’s cooperation. Charles II also
raised other delicate matters, his lack of confidence in Croissy and a
warning to Madame that Buckingham was not to be trusted with Charles
II’s plan for the religious conversion of his three kingdoms …The
opportunity of this bearer (Hillière) going into France gives me a good
occasion to answer your letters by my Lord Arlington and in the first place
to tell you that I am securing all the principal ports of this country, not only
by fortifying them as they ought to be, but likewise for keeping them in such
hands as I am sure will be faithful to me upon all occasions and this will
secure the fleet, because the chief places where the ships lie are Chatham
and Portsmouth…and I will not have less care both in Scotland and
Ireland. As for that which concerns church lands, there will be easy ways
found out to secure them and put them out of all apprehension. There is all
the reason in the world to join profit with honour, when it may be done
honestly. And the King (Louis XIV) will find me as forward to do (Holland)
a good turn as he can desire and we shall I doubt not, agree very well in
the point, for that country has used us both very scurvily and I am sure we
shall never be satisfied till we have had our revenge, and I am very willing
to enter into an agreement upon that matter whenever the King pleases...
…I received yours by Eliwies (Sir Ellis Leighton) by which I perceive
the inclination there still is of trusting (Croissy) with the main business,
which I must confess, for many reasons, I am very unwilling to, and if there
were no other reason than his understanding which, to tell you the truth, I
have not so great an esteem for, as to be willing to trust him with that which
is of so much concern…There will be a time when both he (Croissy) and
(Montague) may have a share in part of the matter, but for the great secret,
if it be not kept so until all things be ready to begin we shall never go
through with it and destroy the whole business.
…I have seen your letter to (Buckingham) and what you write to him is
as it ought to be. He shall be brought into all the business before he can
suspect anything, except that which concerns (Religion), which he must
not be trusted with. You will do well to write but seldom to him, for fear
something may slip from your pen which may make him jealous that there is
something more than what he knows of…I do long to hear from (Arundell)
or to see him here, for until I see the paper you mention which comes from
(Lionne) I cannot say more than I have done…
After a day of reflection, Charles II sent another letter to Madame.
Whilst confirming his lack of confidence in Croissy’s ability, he accepted
the realpolitik that was in play. Croissy was the younger brother of Louis
XIV’s powerful Minister of Finances and Secretary of the Navy. This
would make Croissy’s replacement difficult to achieve, so for the time
being Croissy would not have any part in the secret negotiations. Charles II
emphasised once again that secrecy was paramount. No one must learn
about the Grand Design …I wrote to you yesterday by Mr. de la Hillière
upon that important point, whether (Croissy) ought to be acquainted with
our secret, and the more I think of it the more I am perplexed, reflecting
upon his insufficiency. I cannot think him fit for it, and therefore would wish
some other fitter man in his station…but because the attempting of that
might disoblige (the French Court), I can by no means advise it. Upon the
whole matter I see no kind of necessity of telling (Croissy) of the secret
now, nor indeed till (Charles II) is in a better readiness to make use of
(France) towards the great business. Methinks, it will be enough that
(Croissy) is made acquainted with (Charles II's) security (trust) in (Louis
XIV’s) friendship, without knowing the reason of it…To conclude,
remember how much the secret is in this important matter and take care
that no new body be acquainted with it, until I see what (Arundell) brings
(Charles II) in answer to his propositions, and until you have my consent
that (Croissy), or anybody else have their share in that matter…I would
feign know which I cannot do but by (Arundell) how ready (France) is to
break with (Holland). That is the game that would, as I conceive,
accommodate the interests both of (England) and (France). As for (Spain),
he is sufficiently undoing himself to need any help from (France), nay, I am
persuaded the meddling with him would unite and make his counsels
stronger. The sooner you dispatch (Arundell), the more clearly, we shall be
able to judge of the whole matter…
…One caution more, I had like to have forgotten, that when it shall be
fit to acquaint (Croissy) with (Charles II’s) security in (Louis XIV’s)
friendship, he must not say anything of it in (England), and pray let the
ministers in (France) speak less confidently of our friendship than I hear
they do, for it will infinitely discompose (Parliament) when they meet with
(Charles II) to believe that (Charles II) is tied so fast with (France) and
make (Parliament) have a thousand jealousies on it…I have no more to add
but to tell you that my wife after all our hopes has miscarried…
Sire de la Hillière also carried a memorandum from Croissy to the
French Court providing a summary of recent conversations with Charles II.
Croissy concluded that Charles II would require significant financial
support from France to enable him to rule without an English Parliament.
A week later, Croissy formally informed Charles II that Louis XIV was
satisfied with the English Court’s explanations regarding their limited
connections with Roux. Croissy reported …I had an audience with the
King of England following what it pleased your Majesty to inform me of his
intentions…on the subject of this villain (Roux)... He (Charles II) expressed
his pleasure to learn that your Majesty was satisfied of the manner by
which he (Charles II) had spoken to me about this affair and told me that it
was equitable to believe that if he had been able to perceive that this man
(Roux) had designs against your Majesty’s person, he would have sent him
(to you) with hands and feet tied. (Not only) as a King would he have
treated him thus, but he was (equally) obliged by the inclination he had to
unite himself closely in friendship and interest with your Majesty, which he
hoped to achieve in a short time.
He (Charles II) asked me next if there was any proof that this wretch
had been so evil as to conspire against your Majesty and I told him that it
appeared to me by a letter from Monsieur de Lionne, that there was already
some and that I believed soon there would be complete and ample evidence.
He then tried all he could to persuade me that my Lord Arlington had no
commerce with him (Roux) other than the subject of the admission of the
Swiss to the Triple Alliance, and I replied again that your Majesty aware
that it was only with the Ministers of Spain that this villain had
communicated his atrocious thoughts. He (Charles II) told me that it was
true that he (Roux) had held long meetings with Isola and the Ambassador
of Spain, and to conclude, he assured me that he would always do what was
necessary on his part to maintain a good correspondence and close
friendship with your Majesty…
Whilst the Roux affair did not negatively impact on the secret
negotiations for the Grand Design, Croissy clearly felt a degree of
dejection, not only for failing to locate Roux in London, but also for not
making any progress with his negotiations for a commercial treaty. He was
also aware that he had been side-lined by the secret negotiations taking
place behind his back between Louis XIV and Charles II. Croissy clearly
felt the need to improve his performance and convince Louis XIV that he
was a competent ambassador.

6
Chapter 13 A valet of consequence

Chapter 13
A valet of consequence

Croissy continued making enquiries amongst the French community

living in London, hoping to uncover additional intelligence about Roux and
his accomplices, Verras in particular. He discovered that one of Roux’s
valets who had left his master some months earlier, was still in London.
The valet’s name was Martin, the same valet who in December 1668,
delivered Roux’s messages and collected mail from Sir Joseph Williamson.
Martin must have left Roux’s employment sometime before February 1669
when Roux left England for Switzerland.
th rd
On the 24 May/3 June 1669, Croissy informed the French
Court...There is a person here named Martin who served as valet to this
villain (Roux) and who badly satisfied, left him. If you find him of use, Sire,
I will try to find out discreetly if he knows anything about the conduct of
this evil person (Roux), so that if he could provide any proof against him
and would travel to France for which I will give him the means. I will
await your orders on this…
The letter was delayed and French Court never replied until nine days
nd th
later on the 2 /12 June. The reply was unambiguous. Louis XIV declared
that Martin was an important witness …The king desires that you stop at
nothing to win over the named Martin who served as a valet to Roux. So
to oblige him to come here have given to him what is necessary for his
travel costs and the hope of some reward according to the service that he
will render as a good subject to his sovereign…
If Croissy had any doubts about Martin’s importance in Louis XIV’s
mind, this was totally removed by the following sentence …his Majesty,
judging that it is almost impossible that the said Martin does not know
some conversations of the said Roux that will strongly implicate him…
Lionne, the Foreign Secretary personally went a step further, to make it
abundantly clear to Croissy that Martin was needed as a crucial witness
…You know that in trials of this kind, although the crimes are beyond
doubt and known by the judges, one is obliged to let them go unpunished
through lack of a sufficient number of witnesses…
Croissy’s instructions were unequivocal and there is no doubt of the
importance of having Martin returned to France. If there was any lingering
doubt, the very same message was hammered home from another quarter.
Charles II informed Croissy …the advice received here (in London) is that
the Lieutenant Criminal (in Paris) is unable to find anything at present that
might convict Roux...
th th
Croissy would not have received his instruction until after the 4 /16
th th
June and on the 14 /24 June, Croissy informed the French Court …I have
pressured the valet (Martin) to go to France, paying for his expenses and
making him hope for a good reward if he serves his sovereign faithfully as a
subject should. But my assistant who spoke to him, did not find that he
(Martin) knew anything of importance…
However, realising how important Martin was to Louis XIV, Croissy
said that he would have Martin interrogated a second time, that same day
even, by Sire Joly, one of Croissy’s abler secretaries. Crucially, Croissy
informed the French Court that if Martin knew anything useful, he would
have Martin removed to France! He also added that if Martin knew nothing
useful, Croissy would still remove Martin to France providing the French
Court ordered him to do so …I will have Martin interrogated again today
by Sire Joly and have him sent over to you only if he can be of use for
something, unless you order me to make him leave even though he says
nothing here…
It is notable that Croissy wrote this reply to the French Court on the
th th
14 /24 June. Thus, he was completely unaware that Roux had been
executed in Paris just two days earlier. Croissy even repeated in his letter
that he had sent intelligence about Verras, by Sire de la Hillière, about
which Roux could be interrogated …You might have the villain (Roux)
questioned on the points that are contained in a memoir (concerning
Verras) which I gave to Monsieur de la Hillière on his departure and have
him (Roux) believe that the man of whom I speak (Verras) has also been
arrested and has confessed the truth…
In this same letter, Croissy once again warned the French Court that the
English were intercepting and delaying mail to and from the French Court
and explicitly warned them to be careful about what they wrote in future
correspondence in case it was intercepted by the English …they (the
English) continue to open all the letters that you write to me whether
directly by post or via the merchants. So, until you receive the code on
which Monsieur de St. Hillaire is working incessantly, I believe it will be
necessary to be careful sending me orders which if discovered (by the
English) could damage the interests of the King (Louis XIV)…
th th
Three days later on the 17 /27 June, Croissy wrote again to the French
Court. He made no mention of Martin’s second interrogation by Sire Joly
which was meant to have taken place three days earlier and added that
…and as soon as I have a secure code, I will report to you more freely on
all things…
st st
Four days later, on the 21 June/1 July, Croissy wrote to the French
Court giving an account of Martin’s second interrogation. Sire Joly was
convinced that the ex-valet, knew important information about Roux’s
intrigues, but was wilfully withholding it. Joly was sure that Martin would
soon talk when interrogated by a French Judge. However, Martin, who was
evidently just a young lad, was quite unwilling to return voluntarily to
France. In his report Croissy portentously added, that gentle persuasion
would not work with Martin! …Monsieur Joly has spoken to Martin and
did his best to persuade him that by going to France to state all that he
knows about what Roux has plotted against the King (Louis XIV), he would
be doing what an honourable garcon (lad) and loyal subject should do.
Martin responded that he knew nothing and that should he go to France,
one would believe that he had knowledge of Roux’s intrigues, and would
put him in prison to make him say things that he did not know and he would
not be able to return here to earn his living with his family.
Joly told Martin there was already sufficient proof against Roux, that
one knew that Roux had received money from both the Spanish Ambassador
and Lisola. Upon hearing this Martin made a nod of the head as though
admitting as much. Monsieur Joly then said that his master was an evil
villain who had got carried away with making menaces against the sacred
person of the King and had even formulated even more damning plans, at
which point Martin said that he was astonished that Roux was still alive,
and finally by expressions of his face and other small words he made
Monsieur Joly believe that Martin knew more about the matter, and that
he would soon talk if he was interrogated by a French Judge, but Martin
would not resolve himself to make the journey, albeit that Joly promised
him that I (Croissy) would give assurances for his safety and safe return,
that I would pay his expenses, and that if Martin told all the truth that he
knew he would have an honest reward…So I fear that I will not be able to
oblige him to return to France by gentle persuasion…
Croissy’s letter then moved onto other matters, including new
intelligence about Roux’s accomplice, Verras …having enquired about
Verras…I have learned from several quarters that Verras is the comrade of
Roux, as evil as he is and employed in the same business of which he has
complete knowledge and continues with it still. He is from the same region
as Roux and was previously here (in England) under the name of Portail,
but having intrigued in cabals and spoken out against the King of England
and his Government, he was condemned to perpetual banishment, despite
which, he returned under the name of Verras, associated himself with Roux,
received letters from this villain while he was in Switzerland, sent coded
messages to him and since Roux’s detention he continues with the same
practices. He has visited the Spanish Ambassador many times and it is
believed that he draws money from there too…
In this crucial letter Croissy next wrote about Verras and requested
permission to seek Charles II’s approval to abduct Verras and remove him
to Calais …if I was to say to the King of England that I know a man
(Verras) in London who is no less a criminal than Roux, not only against
the King our master but also the King of England, and that instead of
naming him, I beseech Charles II on behalf of his majesty (Louis XIV) to
promise to have him taken to Calais, he would perhaps have no difficulty
in this, especially if I said that he is an enemy of all monarchs, that he has
already been banished for making insolent and seditious claims against
Charles II and his government and that he is accused again of doing the
same having returned here…
Next, almost as an afterthought, having previously told the French
Court that he would have Martin removed to France if he knew anything
useful, which clearly he did, Croissy added that he could also request
permission to have Martin removed to Calais too! …I could also, at the
same time, ask the King for Martin, the valet of Roux…
st st
As Croissy was finalising this letter dated the 21 June/1 July 1669, the
mail arrived from the French Court and it was at this very moment that
Croissy learned of Roux’s attempted suicide and rushed execution, nine
days earlier. The French Court notably informed Croissy that Roux had not
divulged any information about his intrigues or accomplices. Croissy,
added a postscript to his letter …I dearly wish that Roux had revealed his
accomplices and that one might have been able to exterminate all those
who have such detestable intentions but it certainly appears by his
obstinate determination, that God has no mercy for such crimes...I await
your orders on the subject of Verras, Roux’s comrade but I believe that it
will now be more difficult to have him now than before the execution of
Roux…
In this final remark Croissy did not make any further mention of Martin.
Croissy realised that whilst Martin was longer be needed to give evidence
at Roux’s trial, Martin clearly knew important information about Roux’s
intrigues and accomplices and refused to reveal them. Croissy could not fail
to realise that following Roux’s rushed execution, the need to have Martin
removed to Calais for interrogation by a French Judge was after Roux’s
rushed execution, even greater than ever and he must be removed to France
as quickly as possible.
It is important to remember that Croissy had received orders from Louis
XIV to stop at nothing to oblige Martin to return to France. Croissy replied
that he would have Martin returned to France if it was established that
Martin knew anything of value about Roux’s intrigues, which was indeed
the case. Croissy, having also informed the French Court that Martin knew
important information about Roux’s intrigues, which he was also wilfully
withholding, this left Croissy with no alternative but to implement his
promise to the French Court and remove Martin from London to Calais,
whether or not Charles II gave his approval to do so.
Surely Martin the valet in London in early July 1669 who was to be
removed to Calais in early July must be the one and same person as
Eustache Danger, also a valet, who later that month was removed from
Calais to Pignerol prison at the end of July 1669 and who later became
known as the Man in the Iron Mask! This is not an original conclusion.
In 1903, the historian Andrew Lang declared that there was no mystery at
all about the identity of Eustache Danger, the Man in the Iron Mask. Martin
and Eustache Danger must be the one and same person. Lang’s assertion
was made on the simplest of reasoning …when a French valet is wanted
st
in England by the French on the 1 July for political reasons and by the
th
19 July preparations are being made to arrest a French valet in Calais
also for something of political significance, then it is inconceivable that
the two valets are not the same person...
However, historians have rejected Lang’s conclusion to this centuries-
old enigma on three grounds:
• Apart from delivering Roux’s letters in London, Martin had nothing
substantial to contribute by way of evidence against Roux apart from
identifying who his master had met and possibly revealing any
overheard conversations.
• Following Roux’s rushed execution, Martin was no longer needed at the
French Court to provide evidence against Roux.
rd th
• On the 3 / 13 July 1669, nearly three weeks before Eustache Danger’s
removal from Calais to Pignerol, The French Court wrote to Croissy
specifically instructing him that it was no longer necessary to have
Martin returned to France.

However, a re-examination of the correspondence between Croissy and

the French Court, clearly demonstrates that the above reasoning is flawed
for various reasons:
• It is irrelevant whether or not Martin knew anything about Roux’s
intrigues. Louis XIV was convinced that Martin must know something
which would implicate Roux and further that Roux’s trial might fail
due to an insufficient number of witnesses. Louis XIV personally
commanded Croissy to stop at nothing to oblige Martin to return to
France., There is no doubt that Croissy felt obliged to remove Roux to
France, whether voluntarily or by other means.
• Roux’s attempted suicide and subsequent rushed execution had
prevented the French Court interrogating Roux under torture to reveal
all the details of his intrigues and the names of his accomplices. Only,
Martin might now provide this information. The need to remove
Martin to France for questioning was greater than ever!
• There was now only Martin who might know anything significant about
Roux’s accomplices in London, notably Verras. Again, the need to
remove Martin to France for questioning was greater than ever!
• During his second interrogation, Martin let it slip to Sire Joly, that he
knew significant information about Roux’s intrigues, which he refused
to divulge and also refused to return to France. All the more reason for
Louis XIV to still require Martin to be removed from London to
France.
• Croissy had informed the French Court that if Martin knew anything of
importance, then he would remove him to France. Croissy later
informed the French Court that Martin possessed information about
Roux and was wilfully withholding it. Croissy knew that Louis XIV
would expect him to implement what he said he would do and have
Martin returned to France
• Croissy even proposed a plan to the French Court to abduct Martin and
 remove him to Calais, along with Verras.
• Following his second interrogation, Croissy would have realised that
Martin was a flight risk who might abscond at any moment. Croissy
now had to act be quickly and remove Martin to Calais to France.
• Croissy had just informed the French Court not to put into writing
anything that might harm Louis XIV’s interests because the English
were intercepting mail from France. Croissy might not now receive
any timely instructions regarding Martin or Verras (which indeed
occurred). Whilst the French Court tardily instructed Croissy not to
remove Martin to France, Croissy did not receive this instruction until
nearly three weeks after he informed to the French Court about
Martin’s second interrogation, during which time Croissy had already
abducted Martin and taken him to Calais for questioning.

Given the foregoing, the various reasons previously put forward by

historians that Martin could not possibly be Eustache Danger, the Man in
the Iron Mask are groundless. The main cause of their error is that it was
incorrectly assumed that Croissy received his correspondence from the
French Court in a timely manner (typically four or five days after it was
sent). Until now nobody has bothered to check the actual dates that Croissy
received his correspondence. Typically, 10 days was required for Croissy to
send a communication from London to the French Court and then receive a
reply, assuming no delays due to bad weather in the English Channel, not
even allowing for additional delays due to French diplomatic mail being
intercepted, decoded and read by the English.
It is also necessary to take in to account other key factors that have not
previously been considered by historians, most importantly, Croissy’s
mindset. This was influenced by a combination of factors, including his
previous underperformance, the pressure he was working under, the orders
he was acting upon, the information to hand, his perception of events as
they unfolded day by day and the assumptions and decisions that Croissy
had to make “on the hoof” when working alone in the field, far away from
his superiors at the French Court.
Croissy’s mindset was pre-conditioned by various factors:
• As French Ambassador to the English Court, Croissy was Louis XIV’s
eyes and ears on the ground. On his appointment, Croissy was briefed
about Roux and instructed as a matter of urgency to make contact with
Morland in London and report back to the French Court with the latest
intelligence. Croissy failed to make contact with Morland and provide
the French Court with up-to-date information about Roux’s
whereabouts.
• When the French Court discovered in February 1669 that Roux had
returned to London, Croissy was acutely aware of Louis XIV’s
extreme desire to have Roux captured …the King wishes passionately
to have him (Roux) arrested…his Majesty desires that you apply
yourself with all your industry to finding this person and discover
his plans…
• Croissy was acutely aware that on his “watch” Roux had returned to
London and remained there for three months, actively plotting against
Louis XIV, visiting Arlington at the English Court and the Spanish
and Austrian ambassadors at their respective residences, all under
Croissy’s nose!
• Croissy only learnt about Roux’s return to London from his superiors at
the French Court, several hundreds of miles away and not through any
industry or diligence on his own part.
• When the French Court informed Croissy about Roux’s presence in
London, Croissy was unable confirm whether or not Roux had already
left London
• It was the French Court who then informed Croissy that Roux had left
London and was now in Franche-Comté.
• In all, Croissy knew that he had failed miserably with regard to Roux and
he admitted his failure to the French Court …I am so unhappy to have
failed to arrest this atrocious man…
• When Croissy learned that Roux had avoided revealing his intrigues and
accomplices, he lamented to the French Court …I dearly wish that
Roux had revealed his accomplices and that one might have been able
to exterminate all those who have such detestable intentions…
• The French Court admonished Croissy for mistakenly using the reserve
Silver Code which was reserved for special purposes. The English had
broken the other French code and now might even have sufficient data
to permit them to crack the emergency Silver Code. Again Croissy
had to apologise to the French Court for this grave error.

In parallel with these failures, Croissy performance patently lacked

lustre especially when compared to the stellar performance of Ruvigny, his
predecessor:
 • Ruvigny revealed Roux’s presence and anti-French intrigues in London.
• Ruvigny persuaded Morland and Leighton to spy for the French.
• Ruvigny helped promote the Anglo-French alliance now coming to
fruition through the secret negotiations for the Grand Design between
Charles II and Louis XIV.
• Ruvigny, now back at the French Court was able to maintain contact
with Morland in London. Morland refused to meet Croissy or provide
him with any intelligence because the English had cracked the French
diplomatic code.
Against this backdrop of failure, Croissy was also quite aware that he
had been side-lined at the English Court by the secret negotiations for the
Grand Design taking place directly between Charles II and Louis XIV.
Croissy was equally aware of Charles II’s low opinion of his ability.
Arlington and Buckingham picked up on this and in turn became restrained
in their dealings with Croissy. In June 1669, a dejected Croissy informed
the French Court …The King of England and his Ministers no longer speak
to me and reply so coldly when I question them…
Croissy was equally well aware that communications with the French
Court were tortuously slow. Normally ten days were required to send a
communication and receive a reply. In addition, the English were
intercepting, decoding and delaying diplomatic mail, causing yet further
delays. Consequently, Croissy knew that he could not possibly hope to
receive a rapid response from the French Court to his suggestion to
approach Charles II about Verras and Martin for at least ten days and likely
many days later if the English intercepted the mail.
Furthermore, Croissy and the French Court were now restrained in what
they could state in their correspondence. The English had cracked the
French code and Croissy specifically warned the French Court …I believe
it will be necessary to be careful sending me orders which if the secret is
discovered, could damage the interests of the King… Consequently, Croissy
might not even receive a written instruction regarding Martin’s planned
abduction due to its sensitive nature and in any case, as far as the French
Court was concerned, Croissy had previously informed them that he would
remove Martin to Calais if he knew something useful about Roux which
Croissy later revealed that he did.
If Croissy had the slightest uncertainty as to whether Louis XIV might
now longer require Martin to be removed to France following Roux’s
execution, following his earlier failures. Croissy could not dare second
guess what Louis XIV might now command on the matter. He could not
risk failing once again. It was far better to carry out his existing instructions
and implement the actions he had promised the French Court that he would
carry out, i.e., remove Martin to Calais if he knew something useful which
he did. Rarely is one sanctioned for following orders or carrying out pre-
announced actions. On this point, Croissy would have also taken comfort
from the fact that just a few weeks earlier when Louis XIV abducted Roux
in Switzerland, Charles II gave his total support, informing Croissy that …
if he (Charles II) had been able to perceive that this man (Roux) had
designs against your Majesty’s person (Louis XIV), he would have sent him
(to France) with hands and feet tied… Croissy had every reason to believe
that Martin’s abduction and removal to Calais would be deemed an
appropriate action by both Louis XIV and Charles II.
All these factors individually and cumulatively contributed to shaping
Croissy’s mindset and furthermore, he clearly possessed the key essentials
of Motive, Means and Opportunity to carry out Martin’s abduction. The
evidence is overwhelming and unequivocal! Croissy had Martin removed
to Calais. Not only does this evidence disprove claims by historians that
Martin was not the Man in the Iron Mask, it fully resuscitates Andrew
Lang’s long-rejected theory and provides overwhelming that Martin was
indeed abducted and taken to Calais in July 1669, shortly after which the
French Court began preparations for Martin’s removal to Pignerol under the
alias Eustache Danger where later he became known as the Prisoner of the
Lower Tower and then later the Man in the Iron Mask.
The timeframe during which Martin was abducted was sometime after
st st
the 21 June/1 July 1669, when Croissy reported to the French Court on
th th
Martin’s second interrogation and the 8 /18 July 1669, when Croissy
received a tardy instruction from the French Court to stand down on his
plan to remove Martin to France …it will no longer be necessary to have
Martin brought here… One might ironically suggest that Martin’s
th
abduction took place on the 14 July. However, the tragedy there is that
rd th th
Lionne’s tardy letter dated 3 /13 July passed through Calais on the 14
July whilst Martin was already detained there.
Whilst the evidence presented here far exceeds the bar of what is
required to meet the civil law test of “on the balance of probability,” does it
achieve the higher bar of “beyond reasonable doubt” as required for
criminal law? The evidence is overwhelming and compelling but, it might
be insufficient to satisfy some die-hard historians and armchair judges.
Such higher standard of evidence is of course most difficult to provide
some 350 years after the event. However, all that is required is a piece of
corroborative evidence that links the French Court to the abduction or
imprisonment of somebody in London during the early days of July 1669.
Yet this evidence exists, completely overlooked by historians! In the
archives of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry there is a volume of
letters of Ralph Montague, the English Ambassador at the French Court
addressed to Lord Arlington, Charles II’s Secretary of State.
One particular letter links Martin’s abduction to the French Court
and even permits the date of Martin’s abduction to be calculated to
th th
within a single day! On the 26 June/6 July 1669, Montague, the English
Ambassador attended the French court and was informed of top-secret
news, for his ears only, which he must not to divulge to anybody!
Montague of course totally ignored that instruction and duly communicated
the secret in a dispatch to Lord Arlington ...I was told at St. Germain for a
great secret that there is a man of good fashion clapt up for a design of
killing Mr Colbert…
On first reading of this communication, one might readily assume that
Montague was referring to Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV’s Secretary of
Finances and Secretary of the Navy and conclude that the secret related to
some French domestic matter. However, the Mr Colbert referred to in
Montague’s dispatch is Charles Colbert, a younger brother of the French
Minister. His full title is Charles Colbert, Marquis de Croissy, being none
other than Croissy, the French Ambassador to the English Court in
London! Croissy is mentioned in Montague’s correspondence with Lord
Arlington at this time as they had been scheming together on the best way
to have Croissy replaced as French Ambassador to the English Court.
Montague used the term Mr Colbert when referring to both Colberts,
Montague, but would refer to Croissy without any qualification and on the
rare occasions that Montague was referring to the Croissy’s elder brother,
Secretary of Finance and Secretary of the Navy, Montague would make this
clear by adding a qualifier such as “Colbert over here”, “Colbert the
Secretary of the Navy”, etc.
A search of Croissy’s lengthy correspondence with the French Court
(including correspondence with his elder brother, Jean-Baptiste Colbert)
reveals there is no mention of any plot to assassinate Croissy or his elder
brother. A search of the prison records of the Bastille and Vincennes
prisons reveal that nobody was imprisoned at this time in Paris for any
similar crime, in particular, a person of “good fashion”. Furthermore, the
correspondence of other Ambassadors at the French Court and
contemporary court memorialists make no mention whatsoever of this
“great secret”.
The “great secret” was a fictive cover story conceived by the French
Court for Montague’s ears only. It was intended that the secret would be
relayed by Montague to the English Court in order to cover-up Croissy
from any involvement with Martin’s abduction in London, should this ever
come to light. When Martin was abducted and taken to Calais, Colbert
would have arranged for an express courier to ride on directly to the French
Court and advise them of Martin’s arrival in Calais. This unusual
th
announcement of a “great secret” was disclosed to Montague, on the 26
th
June/6 July 1669, just 5 days after Colbert’s letter about Martin’s second
interrogation. On learning of Martin’s abduction, Louis XIV would have
realised that Colbert’s actions might negatively impact on the secret
negotiations he was having with Charles II for the Grand Design. Just a
th th
few days earlier, on the 18 /28 June, Louis XIV had despatched Lord
Arundell to the English Court with an important letter to Charles II, in
which he agreed in principal to the Grand Design ...it is with singular joy
that I (Louis XIV) received the letter that you (Charles II) wrote to me and
cannot add anything to the pleasure of hearing everything you have said by
the one who delivered it to me (Lord Arundell). You will appreciate this by
the reply that he carries to you and I am persuaded that you will agree that
it is with justice that you witness to me such an obliging desire to unite
ourselves in a very close union.... The last thing that Louis XIV could
afford at this critical juncture in the secret negotiations of the Grand Design
was for Charles II to become incensed against Louis XIV because Croissy
in London was abducting people on English soil, especially in the wake of
the recent international scandal caused by Roux’s abduction!
A cover story was quickly required to deflect any involvement in
Martin’s disappearance away from Croissy and the French Court. The
fictive person who was “clapt up” is conveniently described as a “man of
quality”, so could not have been a mere valet. This was to demonstrate, if
ever Croissy was ever accused of abduction, that the person involved could
not possibly be Martin, a lowly valet who happened to disappear at the
same time in London. The term “clapt up” was also sufficiently vague to
include abduction and imprisonment.
The reason for the “clapping up” of someone was most justifiable. It
was an atrocious act to plan the murder of a King’s Ambassador, akin to
planning the murder of the King himself, a crime of Lèse-Majesté! The
French Court was quite aware that Charles II had recently voiced his full
support for Roux’s abduction for his crime of Lèse-Majesté. The French
Court anticipated that Charles II would be supportive of such an action.
The fictive account was also sufficiently vague to allow it to be elaborated
upon should additional explanations be required as to why the French
Ambassador had abducted a French person in London and removed him to
Calais.
The French Court knew very well that Montague would not keep the
“great secret” to himself and would report it to the English Court, hoping
that Charles II would be persuaded that the matter of Croissy having
someone “clapt up” (if ever this matter to the notice of the English Court)
was solely a French matter that had nothing to do with Martin’s
disappearance on English soil.
rd th
A week later, on the 3 /13 July 1669, knowing full well that the
English were intercepting and decoding diplomatic correspondence from
the France, as an extra precaution to further divert any blame away from
Croissy, the French Court sent a sham instruction to Croissy stating that it
was no longer necessary to have Martin removed to France, further
deflecting any finger of blame for Martin’s disappearance away from
Croissy …it will no longer be necessary to have Martin brought
here...Neither does the King want you make any approach to the King (of
England) in any manner on the subject of Verras, abandoning this man to
his bad behaviour for which God might provide someday the means of not
letting him go unpunished… Colbert did not receive this letter until the
th th
8 /18 July 1669.
With this final piece of the jigsaw, a timeline can now be established for
Martin’s abduction from London, removal to Calais and subsequent transfer
to Pignerol under the prison alias of Eustache Danger.
th th
• 6 /16 June 1669 (or a few days later), Montague received instructions
from the French Court to stop at nothing to win over Martin and oblige
him to return to France.
th
• 18 /24th June (or a few days later), Croissy informed the French Court
that Martin would be interrogated a second time and that he would be
removed to France if he knew something useful.
th
• 18 /24th June (or a few days later), Martin was interrogated a second
time and found to know important information about Roux which he
was withholding and refused to return to France,
st st
• 21 June/1 July. Croissy wrote to the French Court, confirming that
Martin had been interrogated a second time and that he knew important
information about Roux which he was withholding. In light of
Croissy’s previous letter, the French Court expected that Croissy would
now implement what he said he would do and remove Martin to
Calais. Croissy had even suggested that he approach Charles II for
permission to remove Martin from London to Calais.
nd nd
• 22 June/2 July. Croissy, realising that Martin might abscond at any
moment, he could not afford to wait ten days or more for a reply from
the French Court about approaching Charles II and so he had Martin
abducted and removed to Calais.
th th
• 24 June/ 4 July. Martin was delivered to Calais.
th th
• 26 June/6 July. An express messenger arrived at the French Court with
news of Martin’s arrival in Calais. The French Court immediately
concocted and communicated to Ambassador Montague, the fake news
about a “great secret of someone clapt up…” to help cover up
Croissy’s involvement in Martin’s disappearance in London.
th th
• 28 June/ 8 July (or shortly after). A Judge from the French Court,
arrived in Calais to interrogate Martin.
rd th
• On or before the 3 /13 July. The Judge reported to the French court on
Martin’s interrogation. A decision was made that Marin could never be
released and sham instructions were issued to Croissy telling him it
was not necessary to remove Martin. The French knew that this letter
would be intercepted by the English and further help cover up
Croissy’s involvement in Martin’s disappearance in London.
rd th
• On the 3 /13 July or a few days later, Louvois was instructed to arrange
for Martin to be transferred to Pignerol.
th th
• 9 /19 July. Louvois issued three letters, to Saint-Mars, Captain Vauroy
and Governor Estrades for Martin’s removal under the prison alias of
Eustache Danger to a permanent special secure prison cell to be
constructed in Pignerol (these letters were delayed due to Louvois’s
reorganisation of French postal service at this time) and possibly were
th th
not despatched until the 18 /28 July.
th th
• 18 /28 July. Arrest and detention warrants were despatched to Captain
Vauroy for the removal of Eustache Danger, alias Martin from Calais
to Pignerol (see part Two).
Louis XIV could not risk releasing Martin who might complain to the
English Court about his abduction on English soil. Furthermore, Martin had
withheld important information about Roux which caused Louis XIV to be
…badly satisfied with the conduct of Martin (alias) Eustache Danger and
wanting to assure myself about this person…
There is also another piece of corroborative evidence that Martin and
Eustache Danger are the one and same person. The 1703 death certificate
of the Man in the Velvet Mask, gives the prisoner’s age at about 45 years.
At the time of Martin’s abduction in July 1669, Martin was a young lad,
Croissy informed the French Court …he (Martin) would be doing what an
honourable garcon and loyal subject should… Martin, a boy would have
been between ten and fifteen years old in 1669. This would make Martin
between forty-four and forty-nine years old when he died in 1703, which
tallies well with the estimated age of forty-five years old of the Man in the
Iron Mask at the time of death. Renneville, a prisoner in the Bastille shortly
after the Man in the Velvet Mask died there, wrote that he was informed
that the Masked Prisoner of the Bastille was about eleven or twelve years
of age when arrested which is also consistent with Martin’s age when was
abducted and arrested in 1669.

6
Chapter 14 Loose ends

Chapter 14
Loose ends

Now Heavens preserve our faith's defender

From Paris plots and Roman fervour,
From Louis’s Council, and all Pretenders,
From all intriguers and papist bleeders.

In the final analysis, the Roux affair and Martin’s subsequent abduction
and imprisonment under the prison alias Eustache Danger did not have a
negative impact on the secret negotiations for Charles II’s Grand Design.
Martin’s abduction did not come to the attention of the English Court.
Louis XIV’s positive response to the Charles II’s Grand Design cleared
the way for detailed negotiations to begin, ultimately leading to the signing
of the Secret Treaty of Dover in the spring of 1670. There were many
matters that still needed to be resolved, not least the military assistance that
the French would provide to Charles II to assist in putting down any
uprising in England, the best time to jointly declare war against the Dutch,
the logistics of how war was to be waged against the Dutch and financed,
how the spoils of war would be divided, an associated treaty of commerce
and not least, the amount of financial assistance that Louis XIV would
provide to Charles II to fit out his navy and enable him to remain
financially independent and govern without an English Parliament while he
implemented his Grand Design and converted his three kingdoms to the
Catholic Faith.
Whilst the full extent of Charles II’s treachery over his subjects is
available for all to read in the ratified Secret Treaty of Dover, the following
memorandum dated December 1669, drafted by Sir Richard Bellings, one
of the English negotiators and a draft of the opening article of the Secret
Treaty, provide a stark illustration of what Charles II hoped to achieve by
his Grand Design
Memorial submitted by Mr Bellings to Mr Colbert (de Croissy):
• Charles II is to get £200,000 for declaring himself a Catholic.
• France is to assist him (Charles II) with troops if his subjects rebel
• If the King of Spain dies without issue, Spain is to be divided: England is
to get Menorca, Ostend and Spanish America. France to get the rest of
the Spanish dominions,
• Holland is to be divided between France and England and provision to be
made for the young Prince of Orange,
• Charles II to have £800,000 per year during the Dutch War
• War to be declared against Hamburg…

…The King of Great Britain being convinced of the truth of the Catholic
religion, and resolved to declare himself a catholic and to reconcile himself
to the Church of Rome, thinks the assistance of his Most Christian Majesty
(Louis XIV) may be necessary to facilitate the execution of his design. It is,
therefore agreed and concluded upon, that His Most Christian Majesty
shall supply the King of England, before the said declaration, with the sum
of £200,000 sterling…and further that His Most Christian Majesty shall
assist the King of England with troops and money, as there may be
occasion, in case the said King's subjects should not acquiesce in the said
declaration and rebel against his said Britannic Majesty, which is not
thought likely"…
 In September 1669 Charles II’s secret envoy, Lord Arundell, made one
more trip to the French Court to deliver Charles II’s proposals for the next
phase of the secret negotiations. The talks were moving into a critical phase
and so Arundell returned to England in October 1669 to avoid arousing any
suspicions. At this point, despite Charles II’s previous low esteem of the
French Ambassador, Croissy was finally let into the secret of the Grand
Design and Louis XIV granted him full powers to finalise the negotiations
in England.
By spring 1670, the Secret Treaty was ready for signature and in April
of that year, Louis XIV and his Court set off to tour the recently conquered
territories in Flanders. Louis XIV’s escort included an army of 30,000 men
under the command of Lauzun who was then at the zenith of his popularity.
His fall from favour and imprisonment in Pignerol along with the Man in
the Iron Mask would not occur until the following year (see Part Two).
Charles II’s sister, Madame accompanied the royal entourage as far as
Lille, where she and her train travelled on separately to Dover to
rendezvous with her brothers, Charles II and James, Duke of York.
Ostensibly the voyage was for pleasure, but Madame was there to help
resolve any last-minute issues and oversee the signing of the Secret Treaty
nd st
of Dover which took place on the 22 May/1 June 1670.
The Secret Treaty was signed by Arlington, Arundell, Clifford and
Belling, on behalf of Charles II. Croissy signed on behalf of Louis XIV.
The Treaty was later ratified by both kings. Shortly after her return to
France, in July 1670 Madame died suddenly, and all letters from Charles II
th th
to Madame dated after 24 June/4 July 1669 were destroyed at the request
of Charles II.
A second parallel treaty (the Traité Simulé) was also signed later in
1670. This was essentially a sham treaty for public consumption in England
to promote and justify the planned Anglo-French war against the Dutch.
The treaty was the same as the Secret Treaty of Dover apart from the
omission of the sensitive clauses relating to the Catholic conversion of
Charles II’s kingdoms and the military assistance that Louis XIV would
provide to Charles II in the event of any uprising in England. The financial
elements to enable Charles II to rule without a Parliament and facilitate the
religious conversion of his kingdoms was disguised as part of the military
subsidy.
Buckingham’s involvement with Roux is unclear. He was fully aware of
the forthcoming war against the Dutch and viewed this an opportunity to
cover himself with military glory by leading the small English military
force which Charles II had agreed to supply to Louis XIV as part of the
land invasion of the Dutch Republic. However, within a year Buckingham
was out of favour at the French Court. Louis XIV was aware of
Buckingham’s duplicity including not least his intimate friendship with
Roux as was exposed by the merchant Jacques Gueston …the Duke of
Buckingham…was his (Roux’s) intimate friend and he (Roux) drank no
others wine but his…
Just a month before Lauzun’s arrest and removal to Pignerol, Montague
the English Ambassador was instructed to negotiate a reduction in the levy
of 6,000 English soldiers for the Dutch war. If this dispensation was
obtained Buckingham would lose his treasured opportunity to lead troops
into battle and so he strongly objected to the proposal. The French Court’s
low opinion of Buckingham at this time is evidenced in Montague’s
th rd
despatch to Charles II on the 13 /23 September 1671. …Mr Lauzun…told
me that the Duke of Buckingham had engaged to bring over such good men
that he thought it would be impossible to prevail with the King (Louis XIV)
to release you (Charles II) from your agreement…However (Louvois)
informed me by what we now know of Monsieur de Buckingham, we believe
him to be an incompatible person and we absolutely do not want him to
play the evil one here as he does in England…
Whilst the Secret Treaty of Dover paved the way for Charles II to
undertake the religious conversion of his Kingdoms at a time of his
choosing after the Anglo-French declaration of war against the Dutch, in
the end, Charles II’s Grand Design came to nought. The Dutch war was
unpopular and was not a successful campaign. Later, during the late 1670s
and early 1680s, political and religious tensions increased dramatically in
England with Popish plots being uncovered on a regular basis. Suspicion
and unrest amongst the English was further fuelled by Charles II’s brother
and heir, James, Duke of York who openly declared himself a Catholic.
There were also strong suspicions about Charles II’s own religious leanings
which were fuelled in part by Primi Visconti’s revelatory book containing
details of Charles II’s Grand Design and the Secret Treaty of Dover (the
details of which were furnished by none other than Croissy). Charles II,
always one to take the least line of resistance, now decided not to risk being
forced to go on his travels again and abandoned his Grand Design and it
was only after his death-bed conversion in 1685 that his true religious
leanings became public knowledge. When Charles II’s successor James II
went into exile in France in 1688, Louis XIV decided he needed to keep
Martin, alias Eustache Danger. alias the Man in the Iron Mask in prison to
prevent the story of his abduction from London ever adversely impacting
on James II’s potential return to England.
**********

QED? All solutions to any historical mystery must stand up to critical

and impartial peer scrutiny. The findings of this Cold Case Review were
presented to a number of historians and researchers specialising in this
period of history. Some queries have now been addressed in the preceding
chapters and Part Two which covers the prison years of the Main in the Iron
Mask and reviews of certain other candidates that have been proposed in
recent years.

6
Chapter 14 Loose ends

Part Two

6
Chapter 15 – Troublesome valets

Chapter 15
Troublesome valets

The first recorded sighting of the Man in the Iron Mask was in 1687,
some sixteen years before the prisoner’s death, when he was seen being
transferred from a remote Alpine prison to another equally remote prison
located on a French island in the Mediterranean Sea. However, in order to
identify the masked prisoner, it is necessary to travel back to December
1664, when Louis XIV appointed Saint-Mars to guard yet another special
state prisoner. In contrast to the enigmatic Man in the Iron Mask, this
particular prisoner was very well-known, being none other than Nicolas
Fouquet, one of Louis XIV’s senior Government Ministers. After he was
found guilty after a drawn-out trial, of embezzling state funds and Lèse-
Majesté, Louis XIV had expected the Court to pass down the death penalty,
after all, nothing less would suffice for such serious crimes. Instead, the
trial judges sentenced the prisoner to permanent exile. However. any relief
that Fouquet might have felt was short-lived as the King then graciously
“reduced the sentence” to life imprisonment, ostensibly in the interests of
the state security. The prisoner knew far too many government secrets to be
allowed to leave France.
Fouquet was a popular person who had many supporters and there was a
risk that they might attempt to spring the prisoner out of gaol.
Consequently, Fouquet was imprisoned in the remote fortress of Pignerol in
the Southern Alps far away from Paris and Brittany where most of
Fouquet’s supporters were based. Pignerol (known today as Pinerolo) is
located on the Italian side of the Maritime Alps, near the border with the
then Duchy of Savoie. It was a well-garrisoned border fortress town and the
prison was located within the walls of the town’s military citadel.
The renowned Musketeer D’Artagnan who was responsible for
guarding Fouquet during his trial, recommended Saint-Mars to become
Fouquet’s permanent gaoler. Saint-Mars was duly provided with a “Free”
complement of officers and soldiers to undertake the necessary sentry and
guard duties within the prison. Saint-Mars acted independently from the
town Governor and the military hierarchy stationed in the town, reporting
directly to Louvois, the French Minister of War. Saint-Mars arrived at
th
Pignerol on the 10 January 1665, nearly a week before Fouquet. His first
task was to prepare Fouquet’s accommodation which despite his crimes,
was to be suitable for a person of noble birth. Saint-Mars also needed to
find a trustworthy valet, a Priest and a confessor for his prisoner.
Louis XIV required regular reports on Fouquet and Louvois instructed
Saint-Mars …send me news every week, even when you have nothing to
inform me you must still write... No doubt one of the reasons for Saint-
Mars’s appointment was his ability to write an intelligible report, albeit in
an untidy scrawl and irregular childlike spelling, not uncommon for that
time. Saint-Mars duly despatched reports twice-weekly to Louvois and a
large number survive in the French National Archives. Unfortunately, a
substantial portion have been lost over the centuries, not least during the
taking of the Bastille when many documents were looted or burnt.
At Pignerol, Fouquet was allowed no news whatsoever from outside the
prison. Within days of his arrival he pestered Saint-Mars for news of his
wife and requested pen and paper to write to her. Saint-Mars sought
permission from Louvois who curtly responded …I have no doubt that
Monsieur Fouquet would be pleased to receive letters from his wife and to
reply to her, but beforehand it is necessary that the King wishes it so, which
I do not see him at all disposed to do at present. As it is not impossible that
they (the Fouquets) will attempt to write to each other without permission
from his Majesty, ensure that those who approach Fouquet are not allowed
to be corrupted to permit this…
In April 1665, three months into his imprisonment, Fouquet’s Confessor
warned Saint-Mars to be extra vigilant of any books that he lent to Fouquet.
Louvois was duly informed and he instructed Commissioner Damorzan to
question the Priest on the matter. Fouquet had been leaving messages in the
books and he was subsequently limited to just two books at a time. Saint-
Mars was ordered not to let people know that any books he borrowed were
intended for Fouquet and to thoroughly inspect them all when lending them
to his prisoner.
In June 1665, a violent thunderstorm caused an explosion in an
ammunition store resulting in severe damage to the prison and Fouquet was
removed to the nearby fortress of Perousse until the necessary repairs were
completed. Before leaving Pignerol, Saint-Mars and Fouquet were
temporarily lodged at Commissioner Damorzan’s residence where Saint-
Mars discovered more messages that Fouquet and his valet had concealed
in the back of a chair. Saint-Mars was now ordered to conduct regular
searches to prevent Fouquet from having any writing materials whatsoever.
Louvois also instructed Saint-Mars to interrogate Fouquet’s valet to
discover how his master had managed to make invisible ink which only
became visible after it was heated.
Despite these restrictions and frequent searches, Fouquet repeatedly
attempted to write on any medium that would bear his home-made ink,
made from a mixture of wine and human sweat. Saint-Mars would
frequently discover Fouquet’s writings and forward them to Louvois who
on one occasion replied …You can tell Monsieur Fouquet that if he
continues to employ his table linen as note paper he must not be surprised
if you refuse to supply him with any more…. Fouquet’s valet was thereafter
given single items of table linen which had to be returned complete and
undamaged before receiving a replacement.
The subject of valets would become a recurring topic in Saint-Mars’s
correspondence, particularly the eternal difficulty in finding a replacement
valet whenever Fouquet’s valet fell ill, a regular occurrence in a prison
which was cold and damp in winter and stiflingly
hot and humid in summer. Naturally few valets were prepared to serve a
master locked up in prison. On more than one occasion Fouquet was
warned to stop corrupting his valet which Saint-Mars had provided.
By the summer of 1666, the repairs to the prison at Pignerol were
completed and in August Saint-Mars and Fouquet returned. Fouquet’s valet
had fallen ill and a month later, a replacement valet also fell ill. After both
valets recovered, Louvois gave Saint-Mars the option to return either the
original or the replacement valet to Fouquet. If Saint-Mars intended to
release the other valet, then he must hold him in a cell for a few months so
that any messages that the valet might have from Fouquet would become of
little value with the passage of time.
Saint-Mars later discovered more of Fouquet’s concealed writings
which the replacement valet had failed to disclose and Saint-Mars was
instructed to return the original valet to Fouquet. At this point Saint-Mars
made an alternative suggestion, to which Louvois replied ...The King
considers that one cannot do better than your suggestion to place both
valets with Monsieur Fouquet…I believe that it is appropriate that the one
you hold prisoner be one of them in order to punish him for having
deceived you. The advantage that you obtain is that one valet will keep a
watch over the other and you will know by questioning them or from their
reports to you whether they are telling the truth... The fate of Fouquet’s two
valets was sealed when Louvois later issued a further instruction ...when
you return the two valets that you have arrested to the prisoner (Fouquet),
tell them that they will only leave (prison) when they are dead. This will
remove all expectation of ever serving him (Fouquet) on the outside and
remove all hope of him (Fouquet) from taking advantage of them... The
prison correspondence reveals that the names of Fouquet’s two valets were
Champagne and La Rivière. Of their earlier life, nothing is known, but in
subsequent years they would each play a significant role in the prison life
of the Man in the Iron Mask.
Fouquet was the first of a select group of state prisoners that Saint-Mars
guarded during his long career as one of Louis XIV’s state gaolers.
However, it is Saint-Mars’s second prisoner, who is of greater interest to
this Cold Case Review. His name was Eustache Danger and he arrived at
Pignerol during the late summer of 1669, some four years after Fouquet’s
arrival.
6
Chapter 16 - Danger

Chapter 16
Danger

Saint-Mars received a notification of the impending arrival of his

second state prisoner in a letter dated the 19th July 1669 …The King having
commanded me to have escorted to Pignerol the named Eustache Danger,
it is of the utmost importance to his service that he be guarded with the
greatest security, and that he may not disclose any information to whoever
by any means. I give you notice in advance so that you may prepare a cell
where you will securely place him, observing that the windows where he is
placed do not give onto other places that may be accessed by people, and
that there are enough closed communicating doors so that your guards may
not hear anything. It will be necessary that you yourself bring once a day to
this wretch sufficient to live on for the whole day, and that you never listen
under any pretext whatsoever, to what he wants to say to you, threatening
him repeatedly to have him killed if he ever opens his mouth to speak to you
of things other than of his necessities… you will prepare furniture for the
one who is to be brought to you, observing that as he is only a valet, it will
not be necessary for him to have any property of significance, and I will
reimburse you both for the expense of his furniture and what you require
for his food...
The same day, the French Court made arrangements to arrest and
transfer Eustache Danger to Pignerol. Louvois wrote to Count d’Estrades in
Dunkirk instructing him to grant leave to Captain Vauroy one of his
officers, …Monsieur, Sire de Vauroy having business which obliges him to
be absent, I beg you very humbly to grant him leave…. Louvois also
prepared orders for Captain Vauroy to justify his absence …Monsieur, I am
informed that officers of Spanish troops (from the Spanish Netherlands)
chase after their deserters on the soil of the King (Louis XIV), which
obliges me to inform you that it is necessary that they do not become
accustomed to this, and that his Majesty desires that you have his troops
charge any of the officers who are encountered whilst taking or escorting
any deserters… There are no records of other French officers or garrisons
near the border with the Spanish Netherlands receiving a similar general
order and as will be seen these orders were issued to provide a plausible
cover to enable Vauroy to absent himself to undertake a secret mission.
th
A warrant dated 28 July 1669 was issued to Vauroy ordering him to
arrest Eustache Danger and escort him to Pignerol …Captain de Vauroy,
being badly satisfied with the conduct of Eustache Danger and wanting to
assure myself about this person, I write to tell you that you have to seize
and arrest him on sight and escort him yourself in total security to the
Citadel of Pignerol, in order to be guarded under the care of Captain de
Saint-Mars to whom I have written the enclosed letters, in order that the
said prisoner is received and guarded there without difficulty. After which
you will return from there and report on what you have done to execute this
present order…
Louis XIV also issued an imprisonment warrant to Saint-Mars which
was dated the same day …Sending to my citadel of Pignerol under the
escort of Captain de Vauroy, Major of my town and citadel of Dunkirk, the
named Eustache Danger, in order to be securely guarded there, I write you
this letter to tell you that when the said Captain de Vauroy arrives in my
said citadel of Pignerol you have to receive him from his custody and hold
him under good and secure guard until a new order from the King,
forbidding that he has any communication with whoever in person or in
writing. And in order that you do not meet with any difficulty in the
execution of this my wish, I order the Sire Marquis de Pienne, and in his
absence, whoever commands the said citadel to give you all the aid and
assistance that you will need and might require to this effect. And this
present letter having no other purpose, I pray to God that he has you in his
holy guard.
st
Eustache Danger arrived at Pignerol on or shortly before the 21 August
1669 ...Monsieur de Vauroy has handed over to my charge Eustache
Danger. As soon as I had placed him in a secure place, while waiting for
the completion of his place of confinement, I told him, in the presence of
Monsieur de Vauroy, that if he spoke to me or to anybody else of things
other than for his necessities, I would run a sword through his stomach…I
will not fail on my life to most punctually observe your orders…
In Pignerol, Saint-Mars’s new prisoner soon became the cause of
speculation and in September 1669 Louvois, who had an extra pair of eyes
and ears at Pignerol, wrote to Saint-Mars …I have been informed that you
told Monsieur de la Bretonnière that a prisoner was going to be sent to you,
but I am pleased that this turned out not to be true... Saint-Mars replied
…There is nothing truer, than I have never spoken about this prisoner to
anybody, and as proof of this many people believe here that he is a Marshal
of France, and others say a President....
Although Eustache Danger was placed incommunicado and threatened
with instant death if he talked of anything beyond his daily needs, Saint-
Mars was not instructed to treat him harshly unlike other state prisoners
that Saint-Mars would later receive. Louvois even allowed Eustache
Danger to receive prayer books, attend weekly mass and to make his
confession …you may give your prisoner a prayer book and if he asks you
for another give it to him also. You might have him hear mass on Sundays
and holy days which you have said for Monsieur Fouquet, without them
being in the same place together, and observe to have him so well guarded
at this time that he may not escape or speak to anyone, you might even let
him confess three or four times a year, if he desires it, but no more so,
unless he has a serious illness…
Eustache Danger was also allowed medical treatment, although Saint-
Mars needed retrospective permission for this as it had not been
specifically authorised by Louvois ...I have learnt by your letter…about the
illness of Monsieur Fouquet and the opinion of the doctors thereon, also
that the prisoner that has lately been sent to you is ill and that it was
necessary to bleed him in order to recover his health, on which I inform you
that there is no problem in having done this and that when such similar
instances happen you may have him treated and supply him with medicines,
without waiting for an order on this, as you have been accustomed of
doing…
In December 1669, a few months after Eustache Danger’s arrival, a plot
was uncovered to communicate with Fouquet and help him escape. This led
to the disciplining of some of Saint-Mars’s soldiers and the arrest of two of
Fouquet’s supporters, one named Laforet was subsequently tried by a
military court and executed and the second Valcroissant was sentenced to
the galleys. Fouquet was now subjected to additional security measures
including the placing of metal grilles outside his windows over which
screens were added at night so that no light signals could be given or seen
by Fouquet.
Fouquet’s two valets, Champagne and La Rivière were suspected of
involvement in the escape plot. At the very least they had failed to inform
Saint-Mars about Fouquet’s illicit communications, Champagne more so
than La Rivière ... The king does not want you to put on trial Monsieur
Fouquet’s valet, Champagne…but that you hold him in a harsh prison to
punish him for his unfaithfulness. As regards La Rivière the other
valet…the King leaves it to you to treat him as you wish. That is either to
leave him with Fouquet or to withdraw him in which case keeping him
detained for seven or eight months in order that if he has taken steps to
bring out news of his master it would be so old by this time that it cannot
cause any detriment…
As usual Saint-Mars was unable to find any replacement valets and he
requested permission to reinstate Champagne and La Rivière as valets to
serve Fouquet, or if this was not permitted, that Louvois send him
replacement valets from Paris. Louvois replied …The king leaves it to you
to make use of Monsieur Fouquet’s valets as you see fit. It is necessary only
to observe that if you give him valets sent from here, they might be won
over beforehand and thus they would do worse than those that you would
withdraw from him… The same month Louvois issued further instructions
regarding the punishment of Champagne and La Rivière …Since Fouquet’s
valets are so unfaithful to the King, his Majesty approves that from now
onwards they are deprived of their wages…
Whilst Eustache Danger’s special cell was under construction (it would
not be ready until April 1670), the new prisoner was held in an ordinary
cell. In March 1670 Louvois was advised by his secret source at Pignerol
that someone had communicated with the new prisoner …I have been
advised that either Sire Honneste (Valcroissant) or one of Monsieur
Fouquet’s valets has spoken to the prisoner brought to you by the Major
from Dunkirk (Eustache Danger), he asked amongst other things if he had
anything of consequence to tell him, to which he replied that he be left in
peace. He treated him thus, probably believing that someone was
interrogating him on your behalf to test him to see if he would say
something…As it is very important to the King’s service that he has no
communication at all, I urge you to visit carefully the interior and exterior
of the place within which he is enclosed, and ensure that the prisoner may
neither see or be seen by anybody, and may not speak to whoever nor hear
those who would wish to say something to him…. Saint-Mars replied
assuring Louvois that nobody had spoken to Eustache Danger, which
Louvois was pleased to hear.
Eustache Danger’s secret incarceration in Pignerol in a specially
constructed cell …with enough closing doors to prevent the guards hearing
anything the prisoner said… did not remain a secret and aroused the
curiosity of the military personnel at Pignerol. Saint-Mars was forced to
resort to lies and mockery to dampen their curiosity …There are people
who are so curious they ask me for news of my prisoner, or why one has
made so many works for his security, that I am obliged to tell them white
lies, so to mock them…
By May 1670, Valcroissant, who was involved in Fouquet’s failed
escape attempt, was transferred to the galleys in Marseille and the number
of state prisoners reverted back to just two, Fouquet and Eustache Danger,
plus Fouquet’s two valets Champagne and Rivière.
The prison settled back to a mundane routine, with Louvois periodically
advising Saint-Mars on how best to guard against any further escape plots
…I am pleased to see that nothing new is happening to affect your
prisoners, but you must not relax a single precaution. The King approves
that you provide summer clothes for Monsieur Fouquet and that you give
him (Fouquet) the books to read that have been given by Sire Loyauté…and
although all sorts of precautions have been taken when buying them,
nevertheless you might inspect them again before giving them to him
(Fouquet), and only deliver them, one at a time...
In August 1670, however, the calm prison routine was broken when
Saint-Mars received ominous news. Louvois was coming to Pignerol!
…Following the command that I received from the King to visit the fortress
of Pignerol, I am bringing forward leaving here to Saturday afternoon, in
th
order to diligently arrive on Thursday, the 7 of the following month,
towards 4:30 in the afternoon and to stay there Friday, Saturday and
Sunday until mid-day in order to arrive at Turin in the evening…

6
Chapter 17 - Rumours

Chapter 17
Rumours

th
Louvois arrived in Pignerol exactly as planned on the 7 August and
after a three day stay and an equally brief stay in the nearby town of Turin
th
to pay his respects to the Duchess of Savoie, by the 20 August he was
back at the French Court, ready to report to the King on what he had seen at
Pignerol. There is no doubt that Louvois’s journey time of just five days
was an incredible feat, being meticulously planned to take full advantage of
the long summer daylight hours. The ordinary post from the French Court
typically took ten or eleven days to arrive at Pignerol and eight days if sent
by an Express Courier. The long hours of travel each day certainly gave
Louvois no time for any other secret missions elsewhere, so the purpose of
his visit solely concerned matters in Pignerol.
The reason for Louvois’s visit is revealed in subsequent
correspondence. Monsieur Loyauté, an officer at Pignerol (and most likely
Louvois’s secret informant) had warned Louvois about certain rumours at
Pignerol. On returning to Paris, Louvois informed Loyauté …The amount
of business that I have had since my return from Pignerol has prevented me
from reporting to the King on all I have seen and it is because of this that I
have not yet advised you on what you wrote regarding the rumours that are
circulating there…
The following day, Louvois reported to Louis XIV who ordered that a
clean sweep was required at Pignerol. That same day Louvois informed
Loyauté …His Majesty has resolved to put an end to these rumours at once
and put everything in his service on a good footing as one might
desire…the king has resolved to withdraw Messrs la Bretonnière, Saint-
Jacques, Lestang and de la Morasaine…You must not speak to anyone at
all about what his Majesty has decided because it is his intention that this
is carried out without anybody knowing of it…
Whilst some writers have claimed (without any evidence) that the sole
purpose of Louvois’s mission was to interrogate Eustache Danger, there is
no doubt that Louvois’s mission to Pignerol was to investigate these
rumours. The nature of the rumours which warranted such drastic action by
Louis XIV is unknown, but it is hard to perceive how they might concern
Fouquet given that his imprisonment in Pignerol was public knowledge. It
is feasible that the rumours related to Eustache Danger, given that Saint-
Mars had previously commented on two occasions to Louvois of
speculation and gossip in the town about the identity of his mysterious
second prisoner, whose existence in Pignerol prison was intended to be a
state secret …I have never spoken about this prisoner (Eustache Danger)
to anybody, and as proof of this many people believe here that he is a
Marshal of France, and others say a President…
…There are people who are sometimes so curious to ask me for news of
my prisoner, or about why one has made so many works for his security,
that I am obliged to tell them white lies, so to make fun of them…
After the replacement of senior military personnel at Pignerol, Saint-
Mars remained in his post, which supports the view that the rumours
circulating in Pignerol related to Eustache Danger and that the change of
officers was undertaken to ensure that nobody apart from Saint-Mars and
his free company were thereafter aware of the secret presence of this
prisoner at Pignerol. When Monsieur de Rissan was appointed as the new
King’s Lieutenant, Louvois even made it perfectly clear that he was to keep
his nose out of Saint-Mars’s prison ...the King gives you the command of
the citadel of Pignerol as his Lieutenant, without any restriction, I must
nevertheless point out to you that the intention of his Majesty is that you
exercise this as presently done by Monsieur Saint-Jacques who does not
order anything in the prison in the citadel. His Majesty desires that you
leave to Monsieur de Saint-Mars the absolute command of the said prison
until you receive an order to the contrary from his Majesty…
In September 1671, Saint-Mars asked Louvois if he could take
possession of a wine cellar because the entrance was located under a
prisoner’s window …I hope that you will have the kindness to accord me
the favour that I ask, since it is important to the service of the King, and
even if I dare say so to our health. I beseech you most humbly to grant me
the King’s (wine) cellar that is held by Monsieur de Loyauté. I will take the
same care of it as he does and if you accord me the honour of giving it to
me, when I leave here I will return it in the same state that I received it, and
I will no longer be obliged to continually watch those who go into the
cellar which is below the windows of my prisoner, where one might do
something considerable against the service of his Majesty, if one fails to
watch over those who go into the said cellar... Saint-Mars’s subsequent
paragraph makes one wonder whether prisoner security was the main
consideration …My own (wine cellar) is so small that we have to drink
each year the new wines, and as they are most disgusting in this area, the
doctors say that in part it is this which is making us ill. Have pity on us…as
we really suffer inconveniences during three or four months of the
year...Monsieur Fouquet is bearing quite well presently…I can assure you
that it is not with much sorrow that he faces each day…
A contemporary plan of the Citadel and prison shows that the stairs to
the cellar in question were located below a central tower called the Lower
Tower. The windows of Fouquet’s apartment were located elsewhere on the
south-eastern curtain wall of the prison (between the Corner Tower and the
Lower Tower) so it can be reasonably adduced that the prisoner’s cell
referred to in the letter belonged to Eustache Danger, especially as will
soon be seen, Eustache Danger acquired the alias of the Prisoner of the
Lower Tower.
After Louvois’s visit and the replacement of the key military personnel,
life settled back to its relatively peaceful existence. It was a mundane
routine, interspersed with religious devotions, seasonal illnesses and even a
birth. The prison correspondence for 1671 confirms that Saint-Mars only
had two state prisoners at this time, Fouquet and Eustache Danger, who is
now referred to by various cover names, such as “your second prisoner”,
“the prisoner that has been sent to me” and “my other prisoner.”
…Since your second prisoner (Eustache Danger) and the valets of
Monsieur Fouquet have no need of winter clothing you will do well not to
give them any, and as regards Monsieur de Fouquet you may have him
clothed as he asks. ….
...I have learnt that your wife has given birth to a son, and I rejoice with
you. I am willing to be the godfather as you have chosen me...
…I can only inform you, my Lord of the illnesses that descends upon us.
Monsieur Fouquet has a little fever that does not inconvenience him
greatly, but one of his valets is very ill, as is also the prisoner that has been
sent to me (Eustache Danger). I will take care to guard them well...
…I have only…to inform you that I had Monsieur Fouquet make his
confession on this feast of Our Lady. He is still a little indisposed, but I am
convinced that his good regime will guarantee him from a serious
illness.…One of the valets and the prisoner that has been sent to me (i.e.
Eustache Danger) are extremely ill, they occupy me enough to wish for
their health. I reply to you Monsieur that I will do my duty in all things...
…The letter that you wrote to me on the 7th current informed me that
you had the kindness to remember to permit Monsieur Fouquet to make his
confession. He gives you his most humble thanks, and for myself I take the
liberty to show you my most humble gratefulness…
…All is so calm under my guard that I can only inform you that
Monsieur Fouquet is bearing very well presently with his sciatica which
inconveniences him a little... As for one of his valets and my other prisoner
(Eustache Danger), they are still ill, but much less than they have been. I
will continue caring for their security with as much attentiveness that I
hope you will be content with my small services...
Sadly, for Saint-Mars, the relative peace and tranquillity ended abruptly
in December 1671 when he received his third state prisoner. The Count de
Lauzun!

6
 Chapter 18 - Mayhem

Chapter 18
Mayhem

Lauzun was a minor noble who, until his fall from favour had risen to
become a Captain of the King’s bodyguard and a personal friend of Louis
XIV. St. Simon, Lauzun’s brother-in-law and diarist described his family,
friends and acquaintances without fear or favour, and provides a frank
description of Lauzun’s character …Lauzun was a small, fair man, of good
figure, with a noble and expressively commanding face, but which was
without charm, as I have heard people say who knew him when he was
young. He was full of ambition. capricious, fanciful, jealous of everyone,
wishing always to ascend too far, never content with anything. Not well-
read, an uncultivated mind and without charm, naturally sorrowful, fond of
solitude, uncivilised, very noble in his dealings, disagreeable and malicious
by nature, more so by jealousy and by ambition. Nevertheless, a good
friend when a friend at all, which was rare; a good relative, enemy even of
the indifferent, hard on faults and being ridiculous, which he soon
discovered, extremely brave, and as dangerously bold. As a courtier he was
equally insolent and satirical, and as cringing as a valet; full of foresight,
perseverance, intrigue, and meanness, in order to arrive at his ends and
consequently, dangerous to ministers, at Court feared by all, and full of
witty and sharp remarks which spared nobody...
Lauzun’s fall has been attributed to various causes including an attempt
the previous year, to marry the Duchesse de Montpensier, first cousin of
Louis XIV and the wealthiest women in France. Louis XIV initially gave
his approval to the union however, other members of the royal family
objected, mainly because they did not want Mademoiselle to marry below
her rank. Louis XIV was pressured into changing his mind and
subsequently withdrew his approval. Other memorialists mention that
Lauzun insulted the King’s mistress, Madame de Montespan after she
broke a promise to speak to Louis XIV on Lauzun’s behalf. Montespan
complained to Louis XIV about Lauzun’s bad behaviour and he
subsequently refused to obey the King’s command to apologise.
th
Whatever the reason, on the 25 November 1671 Lauzun was arrested.
The same day Louis XIV instructed Saint-Mars to prepare an apartment for
a new state prisoner …I write to tell you that my intention is to send to my
citadel of Pignerol the Count of Lauzun, Captain of my Bodyguard to be
carefully guarded there, and that as soon as the Sire d’Artagnan, Captain-
Lieutenant of the first company of Musketeers of my guard, whom I have
charged with escorting the said Count of Lauzun, has arrived…you will
receive the said Count of Lauzun and keep him under good and secure
guard until a new order of mine, without permitting him to communicate
with anyone, either in writing or word of mouth...
The following day d’Artagnan left the French Court with a detachment
of musketeers and escorted Lauzun to Pignerol just as he had done with
Fouquet in 1664. Sire Nallot, Louvois’s assistant travelled ahead to deliver
the King’s instructions to Saint-Mars who immediately set about preparing
an apartment cell for his third state prisoner …Monsieur de Nallot arrived
th
here on the 5 and handed me your letter of instruction…I am diligently
preparing Monsieur Lauzun’s apartment… I will lodge him in the two
rooms that are below those of Monsieur Fouquet. These are the ones that
have windows with thick iron gratings. By the manner that I have ordered
things to be done, I assure you on my life for the security of Monsieur
Lauzun, as well as preventing any communication that he might try to give
or receive. I undertake on my honour…that you will never hear anything
spoken from him as long as he is under my guard. As for myself, I will take
such precautions in all things and will be so alert that I will take no risk in
all that I promise. You have made me understand very well the wishes of his
Majesty for the security of this new prisoner…that I can claim it will be as
if he is R.I.P (Requiescat In Pace)…
…I will treat him honestly without having any dealings with him unless
you expressly command me to do so. The place that I am having prepared is
made in such a way that I can have peepholes made so to see him in his
rooms…Have the kindness, my Lord, to be persuaded that I will not do or
undertake anything without first having your permission, and that I will
give you the most exact information on everything that comes to my
knowledge...
…You order me to have the mass said to Monsieur Lauzun only on Holy
days and Sundays. I will follow this to the letter, that is to say I will not
permit him to receive any other holy orders unless you allow them…The
confessor of Monsieur Fouquet, will hear his confession at Easter and not
before…
…I have no other thought than to properly execute your orders. I attach
myself all my life with so much zeal, passion and faithfulness that I hope
you will be content with my meagre efforts…
 Saint-Mars was ordered to place a valet with Lauzun to spy on him, but
suggested that Lauzun should be given two valets, just like Fouquet ...I will
know every slightest thing that he (Lauzun) will do and say by means of a
valet, that I will give to him, as you ordered. With great difficulty I have
found one. These people give me most trouble, more than all the rest,
because they do not want to live their life in prison. I take the liberty my
Lord, to say that it would be necessary to give two (valets) to Monsieur de
Lauzun, because one alone will become bored there by far. Furthermore,
when they become ill, they can look after each other…I have had people
working night and day on the apartment that Monsieur Lauzun will occupy.
I hope that it will be ready when he arrives. There will be adequate daylight
in both rooms and they will be fine and warm, but he will not be able to see
or hear any living soul. I have had the keys and locks made in the presence
of my lieutenants, who I relieve in turn, in order that no one will deceive
me. I will not forget anything in the way of precautions both inside and
outside of my prison so that my duties are provided in accordance with the
intentions of his Majesty…
th
Lauzun arrived at Pignerol on the 12 December 1671 and Nallot
informed Louvois …Monsieur d’Artagnan has found all things necessary
and well prepared for the security and convenience of Lauzun’s lodgings,
and all that remains to be completed are some additional details of
accommodation which will be completed in three days… Louvois replied
that some additional security measures were necessary …an iron grille
fixed across the window openings and another within the chimney to
prevent him (Lauzun) speaking with Monsieur Fouquet via the same
chimney….
Louis XIV demanded regular reports on Lauzun, just as he had for
Fouquet and Saint-Mars duly despatched twice-weekly letters describing
Lauzun’s every word and action. News on Fouquet was relegated to a few
final paragraphs and Eustache Danger is rarely mentioned.
Lauzun was a strong-headed character and from the outset Saint-Mars
complained how difficult his new prisoner was, compared to Fouquet …I
thought Monsieur Fouquet was the most difficult of prisoners to guard until
I received Monsieur Lauzun. Now I can tell you he is a lamb compared to
him…My prisoner (Lauzun) is in such a deep sorrow that I cannot imagine
him being as grand as he is. He told me that I had built lodgings for him in
order to hold him for eternity, that as soon as he realised that he was
coming here (to Pignerol), he could not see any good at all in that, causing
the largest lump in his throat, but despite which, he has the greatest esteem
imaginable for me…Although I have not searched him, I know that he has
on him 30 Sequins or Jacobus and a gold box. Those who searched him the
first time must have accepted money from him. This does not worry me at
all, being certain that he cannot make use of it against the service of his
Majesty…
Lauzun complained about his accommodation, but his apartment was
well furnished, appropriate for his rank, as evidenced by the following
inventory published by Petitfils:
• Tapestry hangings of Bergame to furnish the ante-chamber of Monsieur
Lauzun, 224 livres.
• Wooden bed with two mattresses, a feather duvet, two covers, two sheets,
two chairs, two tables, two carpets, two curtains, 800 livres.
• Two pair of fire dogs and irons, buckets, tongs, a bed for a valet, 250
livres.
• A silver platter with cover patterned with two torches, an ewer with cover,
a salt cellar, two spoons, two forks, two knives, 460 livres.
• Dishes, pewter plates, glassware, 153 livres.
• Four pair of fine drapes for the bed of Monsieur Lauzun, four other pair
of drapes for his valet twenty-four dozen serviettes, 624 livres.
• Complete set of chapel ornaments for the service of mass, 460 livres.
• A mirror, comb, razor, washstand and green dentelled mat, 88 livres.
• Two pairs of silk stockings, a black taffeta scarf, two woollen bonnets,
shoes and slippers, four pair of gloves, 76 livres.
• Two shirts of Dutch woven fabric, with dentelled cuffs, 257 livres.
• Twelve underpants, 12 night caps, dentelled, and a dozen handkerchiefs,
142 livres.
• Two hair brushes, two undergarments, six cravats, all dentelled, and four
nightshirts of Dutch silk, 279 livres.
• A complete suit, underwear, a bonnet, stockings, for the valet, 148 livres.
• A linen Cupboard, large fire rug of green baize, screen, 63 livres.

Following Lauzun’s arrival, the subject of valets became a great pre-

occupation for Saint-Mars. Having suggested that he provide Lauzun with a
second valet, he returned to the subject the following month ...what worries
me is that Lauzun’s valet already begins to be bored and I fear that he will
fall ill in a short time. What embarrasses me extremely, as much as I might
be able to do the impossible, is that I am not able to find any valets here to
give to him. All my valets would not enter there for a million. They have
seen that those that I placed with Monsieur Fouquet never came out from
there…I humbly beg you most my Lord, to have the kindness to instruct me
on what I am to do, and whether you judge it appropriate to give Lauzun
two valets for the reasons that I have had the honour to inform you last
month…
Saint-Mars’s concerns proved to be well-founded. A month later
Lauzun’s valet injured himself and Saint-Mars had to withdraw him and
find a replacement …Lauzun’s valet is ill. He burned one of his legs by
accident and is confined to bed and has a little fever. I will be obliged as
from today to give him one of my own long serving valets. He is a faithful
servant and very faithful, but he is only willing to enter the prison until the
other valet is better. I have promised him that it will be so. I beg you most
humbly…to allow me to keep my word, assuring you that my man will not
allow himself to be won over, and that he will say nothing to anybody that
he has seen or spoken to Lauzun. As for the valet who is ill, I will place him
in a rest room until he is in good health which at least is a safer place than
where he was. It is necessary to give him (Lauzun) two (valets) each with a
bed, because it is certain that people who are kept locked up become ill
over time… I will present a fine present to the valet that I have given to
Monsieur Lauzun if I see clearly that he is truly faithful and you allow him
to come out after the other has recovered his health...
After the temporary valet was placed with Lauzun. Saint-Mars reported
…Lauzun did not want to make use of him at all, treating him as a spy at
first, forbidding him to enter his room. After three days, Lauzun asked to
see his (first) valet who is ill and on approaching his bed, said to him in
quite a stern voice, ‘Be brave, I wrote to the court two weeks ago and when
my letters are seen I will leave here and take you with me, just like I did
with a valet that Besmaux gave me at the Bastille’…
Louvois replied, … His Majesty desires that you keep your word to the
one you have given him and who serves him presently and that you will
release him as soon as you find another to be placed permanently with
Monsieur Lauzun or when the ill one is well enough to serve…You must
continue to inform me of what you learn from Monsieur Lauzun and also
carefully interrogate his valets… Saint-Mars also received approval to
provide Lauzun with two valets The King approves that you give Monsieur
Lauzun two valets…
After Lauzun’s first valet recovered Saint-Mars duly requested
permission to release the temporary valet …his first valet is quite healed of
his burns and I beseech you most humbly to have the kindness to allow me
to withdraw the one that I placed with him, given that he is most faithful....
Although Saint-Mars now had permission to provide Lauzun with a
second valet, he was unable to find one and at this point, Saint-Mars had a
brainwave. He recalled that Louvois had mentioned in 1669 that Eustache
Danger was a valet, surely he would make a good second valet for Lauzun,
especially as Eustache had lived quietly in his specially constructed cell.
Saint-Mars wrote ...It is so difficult to find any valets here who are willing
to be locked up with my prisoners, that I take the liberty to propose the
prisoner who is in the tower that you sent to me by the Major of Dunkirk.
It seems to me he would be a good valet. I do not think he would tell
Monsieur Lauzun from where he came, especially after I have forbidden
him. I am also sure that he would not communicate any information, nor
demand that I release him, as do all the other valets…
Whilst there is no documented record of Louvois’s reply, Saint-Mars’s
suggestion to place Eustache Danger as a valet with Lauzun was refused.
As two months later Saint-Mars wrote …I still cannot find anybody who
wants to be locked up with Lauzun. When I find someone appropriate, I
will place him there as a second valet, as it has pleased you to order…
When Lauzun’s first valet was placed back with Lauzun after
recovering from his injury, he refused to act as Saint-Mars’s informant and
soon fell ill again, and had to be removed once more. Saint-Mars was
determined that the valet should be punished for his obstinance and made to
talk …the first valet that I gave to Monsieur Lauzun is healed of his burns,
but he has become so reserved that I have no doubt that he has been won
over by his master. I cannot extract one word from him and he is doing
exactly the same as the valets of Monsieur Fouquet, when they were won
over by their master. This valet has just fallen ill again so with your
permission I will withdraw him from the apartment of Monsieur Lauzun,
and put him in a place that I have in reserve which after having been there
for a month even makes the dumb talk and by this, I will know everything
about him (Lauzun), and I am certain that he will not forget to tell me the
least bagatelle… After two months in Saint-Mars’s “special place”,
Lauzun’s first valet was placed back again with Lauzun, but he was so won
over by Lauzun that Saint-Mars wrote …Lauzun’s valet is an evil lad and
doing the same again, letting himself be won over by Monsieur Lauzun…
About this time, Louvois authorised the purchase of some prayer books
for Fouquet and his valets (Champagne and La Rivière) and surprisingly
Saint-Mars was paid three years back pay for La Rivière despite Louvois
having previously ordered that La Rivière and Champagne would remain in
prison for the rest of their lives and deprived of their wages.
 Lauzun sought permission to write to Louis XIV to apologise for his
misdeeds and to plead for the King’s forgiveness …Each time I see him
(Lauzun) he asks me my Lord, if you have not had the kindness to reply on
his request to write to the King. I replied to him again that I did not have
any order to give him either ink or paper… Following this denial and
seeing no other option, in March 1672 Lauzun sought permission to write
to Louvois …Monsieur Lauzun asked me if you had said anything about his
request to write to you. I told him that you had ordered me to say, also that
you had communicated to the King his desire to write to him, but that his
Majesty had not agreed and that if you (Louvois) had not given Lauzun
your compliments when he was arrested, this was because you had not
thought that he was in a condition to properly receive them, but
nevertheless he could be assured that, where your duty permitted, you
would provide all assistance within your power. He charged me, my Lord,
to inform you of his respect and obedience for your kindnesses that he
would preserve all his life…
Faced with a lack of response to his pleadings, Lauzun explored his
room to see if there was any means of escaping and in the process set fire to
the floor of his apartment. The incident became public knowledge, it was
even reported in the London Gazette. Saint-Mars informed Louvois …
Before I had Monsieur Lauzun, I had difficulty informing you about
anything of note. Now, Monsieur Lauzun gives me far too much material to
inform you about each week. The day before yesterday he took it into his
head, at night to set fire to the floor of his room. He burnt the end of a
floorboard, which is as wide as a plate and difficult to set alight, after he
wedged some firewood under the said board in order to lever it out from its
place. He and his valet must have worked all night on this because the
planks are joined to each other and nailed in such a manner that I do not
understand, or even how they managed to prise it up. I believe his intention
was to view the construction of the underside of the floor or to cause
upheaval and alter the night-time routine in the prison. I had the repairs
carried out in an hour. I appreciate much better the serenity of Monsieur
Fouquet to Monsieur Lauzun with his pride and brusqueness…
The following month, March 1672, Lauzun’s behaviour changed
abruptly. He took up religious devotions in earnest …I notice that
Monsieur Lauzun occupies himself in devotion. His valet told me that he
does nothing other than praying to God. He is continually on his knees at
the end of his bed in front of a picture of the Virgin Mary that I gave him.
He no longer speaks to me in the manner that he had when he first came
here...
Lauzun was aware that in the Spring of 1672 France and England would
jointly declare war against the Dutch and hoped by good behaviour to be
released and allowed to re-join his regiment. Lauzun’s improved behaviour
ceased after he realised that Louis XIV had no intention of releasing him
and he next descended into a spiral of depression ...since I told Monsieur
Lauzun that the King had already made his appointments for the Dutch war
I find him to be so sad and nobody could be more so. He neglects himself
such that for nearly three weeks he wears his moustache wrapped around
his neck like a scarf…In my opinion, he is in the final throes of despair and
if this continues, I anticipate that he will die. He did not make his
confession at Easter, nor does he want to hear anything spoken about it,
even though I told him that those who do not take communion during Holy
Week are excommunicated…
Louvois joined the French army on campaign in the war against the
Dutch and instructed Saint-Mars to keep him informed as usual about
everything that happened in the prison, but to send only one letter per
month unless something exceptional occurred. Saint-Mars realised at this
time that at forty-six years of age, like Lauzun he would miss out on an
opportunity to earn promotion in the field. For more than ten years Saint-
Mars had carried out his duties as a state gaoler without any advancement
whilst his contemporaries had been promoted and some even granted the
governorship of a town. All Saint-Mars needed was a small token of
recognition …what would make me live here in good health would be a
little honour. I have been a sergeant for such a long time that that I am the
most senior of all. I am informed that Maupertuis is promoted to take
charge of Janville. If you do not have the kindness, my Lord, to speak to the
king about my seniority I will die as I am… A few months later in July
1672, Saint-Mars’s importuning reaped its reward. He wrote to Louvois ...I
have received your letter in which you note that his majesty appeared
inclined to think about my ennoblement…
During the summer of 1672, despite the long daylight hours, by six
o’clock each evening, Lauzun’s curtains were drawn and the candles lit.
Saint-Mars reported …Monsieur Lauzun complains incessantly of being
locked up in a low-lying dungeon with neither air or daylight. All his
complaints and the thousands of inconveniences that he claims he incurs
are only done to make you take pity on him. His room has two large
windows that face the rising sun, but he always keeps them closed and the
curtains drawn. At six o’clock in the evening when I bring him his supper,
the candles are already in his room, and all is closed up like midnight, with
a large fire burning…As for Monsieur Fouquet he thinks (only) of praying
to God and conserving his health in this heatwave during which he has the
habit each year of being a little ill. Before Monsieur Lauzun I believed that
Monsieur Fouquet was one of the worst prisoners to guard that one could
ever find, but at present he is quiet as a lamb compared to the other
(Lauzun)…
That same month, a plot to spring Lauzun out of gaol was discovered. A
prison guard smuggled a written message to Lauzun’s cell, but by chance
during a room inspection Saint-Mars found a large nail which had been
used to hurl the message through Lauzun’s open window. One of the prison
guards subsequently confessed that he had been bribed by a certain
Monsieur Heurtaut, a servant of Lauzun who had recently arrived at
Pignerol along with his cousin, Plassot. Heurtaut was arrested and
committed suicide. Plassot and a female accomplice, Madame Carrière
escaped but were later arrested in Turin and returned to Pignerol. An officer
serving at Pignerol named Matthonnet who Madame Carrière had seduced,
was also implicated in the plot and he too was arrested at Lyon and brought
back to Pignerol. Due to lack of evidence Matthonnet, Madame Carrière
and Plassot were later released.
At the beginning of 1673, Lauzun became a compliant model prisoner
again much to Saint-Mars’s satisfaction …I see that Monsieur Lauzun
keeps his word, never saying or asking anything from me whatsoever. He
has become so compliant and peaceful since the letter you wrote to
him…he is no longer the person he has been in the past so quick-tempered
and curious. One would believe, since making his confession, that he is
steeped in piety in devotion. When I go and say good morning and good
evening to him, I ask how he is and he shows me great reverence, telling me
he is very well and giving me his most humble respects if he was worthy of
it. After having thanked him, we pass some time without saying anything to
each other and when I go to withdraw, I ask him if he has anything to
request of me, again he shows me great reverence and conducts me to the
door of his room. There you have it, my Lord, where we both are, him and I,
and where I believe we will remain….
The start of 1673 brought good news for Saint-Mars. As part of the
King’s yuletide munificence, Saint-Mars was ennobled …The King has
gladly granted you a letter-patent of nobility that you requested... Even
Fouquet benefited. After twelve years of imprisonment, he was allowed to
write to his wife twice a year and receive the same number of replies.
Fouquet had ample time for reflection during his many years of
imprisonment and in 1673 he proposed a scheme which he believed would
be of service to Louis XIV. In return he hoped to receive a reduction in the
length of his imprisonment. On hearing about the scheme Louvois
informed Saint-Mars …if Monsieur Fouquet does not want to explain to
you his thoughts that would be of such use to the King’s service, then
without saying that I have ordered you to do so, you may say to him that
you will give him some paper although you have had no such order to
provide it to him, in order he may write it down, and that you will send it to
me, being willing to run the risk of receiving a reprimand for trying to
render service to him which is not part of your orders…
Subsequent correspondence reveals that Fouquet’s scheme was a means
to enable the King to raise finance …when he (Fouquet) asked me if I
(Saint-Mars) had not informed you (Louvois) of what he had said…whilst
we were talking of schemes used by astute people to obtain finance…he
said to me that it was not appropriate for people to use such methods if
others were left short. After a time, he (Fouquet) said…as I am near death’s
door I depend on your honour and loyalty…to make the King aware that I
have occupied myself for a considerable time examining the important
services that one might render to his Majesty. And god has given me an
insight into affairs and plans so great and important, so achievable and
glorious that I would do him (the King) a disservice if they were lost
without him knowing anything about them…I said to him that it was
beholding to him that the King learned of his great scheme and good
intentions and that assuredly if his Majesty was grateful, he would soften
his punishment. He made an excuse that he was unable to confide his secret
to me saying that I would have trouble understanding things that are only
within the knowledge of a government minister versed in worldly affairs. By
the manner that he appeared to me to be sincere and truthful in all that he
said, I offered him paper and ink so that he could communicate in writing
these important things…but he (also) said to me frankly that he could not
declare to me his thoughts in order to send them to you (Louvois) not for
any reason of self-interest and even less for lack of confidence in me, but
that the subject matter concern things that I do not understand. He
concluded by saying to me if you (Louvois) are willing to provide him your
protection he would do what you wanted and how you wanted but he
wanted only the King and you to have knowledge of the matter and that it
must be kept a secret. He said to me a hundred thousand other words but
this is all I could retain. He does not miss an opportunity to talk to me
about this, but as you command me not to take notice of anything I listen to
him saying very little and act indifferent….
 Finally at the end of March 1673, Louvois wrote to Saint-Mars …I have
carefully read the paper written by Monsieur Fouquet and after concluding
that they do not include anything which as he claims is so important to the
King’s service that could procure any easing of his sentence, I have judged
it appropriate not to present the memoir to his Majesty. You will tell this to
him directly, after showing him some sheets of paper and throwing them
into the fire, in his presence…
In the early months of 1673, Lauzun continued to be a model prisoner
apart from his lack of personal hygiene and unkempt appearance. This and
his bizarre requests for gunpowder ought really to have raised an iota of
suspicion in Saint-Mars’s brain …It seems to me that he (Lauzun) has
become more reserved and moderate than ever. He is as dirty as his
apartment…He asked me for some gunpowder to burn from time to time in
order to take away the bad smell of his room…His valet wears just cotton
underpants as one would in the month of August…
After the Winter snows had cleared, in May 1673, Saint-Mars became
concerned that another attempt to free Lauzun or Fouquet from gaol might
be made …I fear that people will come to the town to inform themselves
about my prisoners, as happened last year, so I have requested Monsieur de
Saint-Léon to give me each month a list of the strangers who have come to
this place, in order that I may see who comes here regularly……
Later that year, the usual diseases and illnesses associated with the hot
Summer returned to Pignerol, making life even more wretched and
unbearable for the prisoners and valets. Even Saint-Mars succumbed and
needed a period of leave to recuperate. Fouquet and his two valets,
Champagne and La Rivière also succumbed …I informed you previously
that Monsieur Fouquet was a little ill. Since then, he has had dysentery and
a prolonged fever from which he nearly died. Presently he is not suffering
from either of these illnesses and he is on his feet and is getting better.
What gave me a great deal of trouble were his two valets who had the same
illness. They are also improving, apart from their present weakness…As for
Monsieur Lauzun he is always reserved towards me…
In November 1673, some improvements in Lauzun’s prison regime
were permitted. He was allowed to receive news from outside the prison,
including letters from his family, however everything had to be channelled
through and approved by Louvois. At this time Saint-Mars was still having
difficulties with Lauzun’s non-cooperative valet …Monsieur Fouquet is as
he usually is…Lauzun has made his confession, but his valet says that he
will not have anything to do with it whilst he is not out of this place…He is
so completely his (Lauzun’s) man that he will not tell me the slightest thing
in the world. This does not bother me as I regard all these valets who are
confined as my enemies, who would betray me with all their heart if they
could do so…
At the end of 1673 Saint-Mars made a rare mention to Eustache Danger,
who is now referred to as the prisoner of the Tower. There is no doubt that
this is Eustache Danger as the mention confirms that this is the same
prisoner as the one brought to Pignerol by Major Vauroy …As for the
prisoner of the tower brought by Monsieur de Vauroy he says nothing and
lives content, like a man altogether resigned to the will of God and the
King… Saint-Mars’s rare comment typified Eustache Danger’s compliant
behaviour and conduct throughout his imprisonment.
In March 1674, Louvois informed Saint-Mars that he would be secretly
sent a new state prisoner, a Franciscan Monk The prisoner was to be
escorted to Pignerol and detained there secretly in the same manner a
Eustache Danger …The king having deemed it appropriate for the good of
his service to send to Pignerol a prisoner, who though obscure, does not fail
to be somebody of significance...You will instruct an officer to escort him
without commotion along the roads, and to have him brought into Pignerol
without noise and without it being noticed that he is a prisoner. Your men
will escort him to the dungeon, where you will hold him in the same
manner as the prisoner that Monsieur de Vauroy brought to you…
Further instructions followed for guarding the Monk. In addition to
being held secretly in solitary confinement, like Eustache Danger, he was to
be treated harshly …Regarding the prisoner about whom I spoke in my
previous mail, it is the intention of the King that he is guarded with the
same precautions as the one who was brought to you by the Sire de
Vauroy, but as this is only a notable rogue who, in most serious ways, has
taken advantage of people of rank, he must be treated harshly and only
give him what is essential for life, without any other comfort,
whatsoever… it will not be necessary to provide a fire in his room, at least
until the coldness of winter or an actual illness obliges you to do so, and
you will give him no other nourishment but bread, wine and water. He is an
out and out scoundrel who can never be treated badly enough nor made
to suffer the kind of punishment he deserves. However, you may allow him
to hear mass…
In September 1674 a death at the prison perversely proved to be a
fortuitous event for Eustache Danger. Champagne, one of Fouquet’s two
valets died. In one of his twice-yearly letters to his wife, Fouquet bared his
soul revealing how devastated he was following the death of his valet.
Fouquet provides a rare insight into his own mental and physical state, but
also of La Rivière, the surviving valet who was very ill and near death’s
door …Since September when before my eyes Champagne, one of my
valets, died, I have had neither joy nor health. He was a diligent and
affectionate young man who I tenderly loved and who showed affection and
comforted me. I would like his brother to be with you in order to do him
some good. My other valet (La Rivière) is dying and in need of being cured
as much as or even more so than me. He is of a grieving nature and so only
having him to talk to both day and night, you can judge how I pass my
days…Monsieur Saint-Mars comes sometimes to see how I am, on
ceremony only, not to talk with me or bring a doctor. The air of our Citadel
is always poor and being ill myself and not knowing what is best for me I
need someone who is an expert and wise, who would stay at my side, or see
me two or three times a day in order for him to judge how I am…I would
need a large tome to write in detail about my ailments but the main thing is
that my stomach is not in agreement with my liver, each taking it in turn to
bother me at night, and if I may say so the most painful piles…and I only
mention a few of my ailments…
Following Champagne’s death, Saint-Mars was as usual unable to find a
replacement valet and suggested once again to Louvois that Eustache
Danger would make a fine prison valet. This time Saint-Mars requested
permission to place Eustache Danger with Fouquet rather than Lauzun.
After referring the matter to Louis XIV, Louvois replied …I have received
th
your letter of the 19 of this month and I have reported its contents to the
King. His Majesty gives permission for the prisoner brought by Monsieur
de Vauroy (Eustache Danger) to serve as a valet to Monsieur Fouquet, but
whatever might occur you must refrain from putting him with Monsieur
Lauzun, or with anyone else. That is to say that you can give the said
prisoner to Monsieur Fouquet when he does not have his valet (La Rivière)
and not otherwise...
Whilst this resolved the issue of finding a replacement valet for
Fouquet, Saint-Mars was still unable to find a second valet for Lauzun. In
March 1675, Louvois confirmed yet again that Lauzun could have a second
valet but, emphasised again that Eustache Danger must never be placed
with Lauzun …If you find a valet who is suitable to serve Monsieur
Lauzun you may give him one, but for any reason whatsoever, you must
not give him the prisoner that the Sire de Vauroy brought to you, who
may only serve Monsieur Fouquet in case of necessity as I have already
instructed you…
It is noticeable that whereas Eustache was allowed to serve as a valet to
Fouquet, he was twice expressly forbidden to serve Lauzun. There may be
numerous banal reasons why this was so, however as will soon be seen, it
was of importance to Louis XIV that these two prisoners must never met in
the prison.
As 1675 drew to a close, and with an eye on the customary annual
Christmastide show of royal benevolence, Saint-Mars once again
importuned Louvois for some further reward for his many years of loyal
service as the King’s gaoler …For the last fourteen years, I have done this
task, both under the late d’Artagnan and here at Pignerol where I have
been for eleven years. As my time here has prevented me from progressing
as those who were once of lower rank than me, I ask you the favour, my
Lord to give me some honour or grant me permission to break my skull in
the army in which I have served since the age of twelve. I do not ask for any
property or wealth, but simply a little honour or that you say to me that my
service here pleases you…
Saint-Mars duly received a favourable reply …the King is well informed
and knows of your exactitude. You must be persuaded that when the
occasion presents itself the King will grant you some mark of honour…
Following such wonderful praise and promise of some future honour, Saint-
Mars’s hopes and spirit must have been truly dashed when just over a
month later, Lauzun managed to escape from his cell in a most spectacular
style, right under Saint-Mars’s nose!

6
Chapter 19 - Escape

Chapter 19
Escape

After several months secretly labouring with his valet to create an

escape route from his apartment to the perimeter of the prison citadel, one
evening in February 1676 Lauzun escaped, leaving a plaintive note
addressed to Louis XIV …Sire I do not know and nobody informs me of
what I am accused…Whatever has happened, I am dearly unhappy for
having angered you, I did so without evil intent. I do not try to justify it, nor
rely upon my innocence, but to the single magnanimity and kindness of
heart of your Majesty. I am guilty since I have displeased you… If I attempt
what appears to be impossible, it is not to free myself from prison, but to
seek death or the means to make your Majesty aware of my entire deference
and submission without reserve to all his orders…Whatever your Majesty
pleases to command, until my last breath it will be punctually obeyed, Sire,
from his very humble, most obedient, obliging, faithful subject and
servant…
Lauzun succeeded only in escaping beyond the prison walls. He was
recaptured the following day before he passed beyond the town walls.
Upon learning of the escape attempt, Louvois issued instructions for
increased security at the prison and informed Saint-Mars that Louis XIV
had ordered a detailed investigation to be carried out to discover exactly
how Lauzun had managed to escape …the King has learnt with the utmost
surprise that one might imagine, how Monsieur Lauzun had been so near to
escaping. His Majesty does not hold any ill feelings against you for what
has happened, being quite persuaded, more than you could hope, of your
exactitude and care for the execution of your orders, but, as it is very
important to his service that the prisoners who are in your hands are
guarded in security in the manner prescribed to you, he desires that you
take measures so that in the future such a thing never happens again…To
this end, he has ordered Sire de Loyauté to have done to your prisons
whatever you believe is necessary to protect you from any such
reoccurrence, and his Majesty has commanded me to recommend to you to
watch over with the utmost care, the antics of your prisoners such that they
may not undertake any activity in their prison without you discovering it at
the same time…
…The surest way in this is to conduct frequent visits, always at different
hours, so that they may be apprehensive of being surprised while working,
instead of the manner in which you have treated them in the past. They
(Lauzun and his valet) were assured that once their supper had been
brought to them, they could work in complete safety until the following
morning, without fear that one might enter their rooms during this time.
Furthermore, you may create in all their rooms, even their toilets, openings
by which you can see how they occupy themselves, in order to quickly
correct anything that they do which is not authorised…
…His Majesty has commanded me to instruct Sire de la Motte-Lamire
to prepare a plan of the prison by which one may understand exactly how
Monsieur Lauzun did this work in order to perceive how he escaped from
the place where he was kept. You will take care to enlighten yourself as
much as possible in the manner by which he managed to do all this, it not
being believable that he (Lauzun) could, without tools have pierced the
thick walls and dug underground tunnels …Neither does his Majesty
understand how having pierced the wall of the prison, he (Lauzun) was
able to pass across the moat and dig under the outer wall beyond the moat
without any passer-by noticing the debris from the excavated walls and
earth from his tunnel.
With regard to the future orders for guarding Monsieur Lauzun, the
intention of his majesty is that they remain as previously prescribed, that is
that you may assure his Majesty that he has no communication with
anybody whether by word of mouth or in writing, and that you give him
another valet providing you can find one, but having once entered his room,
he (the valet) does not come out under any pretext whatever, without an
order of his Majesty…
…I did not find in your packet the length of rope of which you spoke,
thus I am not able to tell from what it is made, but unless it came from
outside, it can only have been made from his bedding….In order that in
future he may not be able to avail himself of the same, you must only give
him enough to meet his exact needs, and when giving it to him take back the
same amount, so that in future he does not have enough of it in sufficient
quantity to be able to make any rope…
Louis XIV also issued orders for Lauzun’s valet to be replaced and
punished for assisting Lauzun to escape …With regard to the valet, he
merits a severe punishment, but his Majesty wishes not to order anything
else done to him, other than being placed in an isolated cell to live there on
bread and water until a new order from him…
When the investigation into Lauzun’s escape was completed in March
1676 and submitted to Louis XIV, Saint-Mars received a firm rebuke from
Louvois …I do not hide from you that his Majesty was greatly surprised
about the long period that Lauzun had been working on this escape and the
few precautions that you had taken to anticipate such an incident. It seems
that Monsieur Lauzun may have forced an iron grille and broke a casement
of a window to then descend by a rope ladder to a place below the window.
He then made a hole in the wall, behind which were located several
boulders, he then made another hole elsewhere by which he escaped, and
that during all this work he hid the debris in a courtyard. You could have
prevented this incident by making random visits at various hours to
Monsieur Lauzun’s apartment, by giving him only enough linen as
absolutely necessary for his everyday needs and by visiting each week the
courtyard over which his windows face.
All that I am telling here must not alarm you, his Majesty being willing
to forget all what has happened, but you have a great interest in preventing
by all means possible such a thing happening in the future, and as his
Majesty desires that Monsieur Fouquet and Monsieur Lauzun are guarded
with the same severity which was prescribed the day that they were sent to
you, you will please apply yourself to do so in future, so that no more
inconvenience may occur…
A duly chastened Saint-Mars was instructed to interrogate Lauzun’s
errant valet who was now languishing in a dungeon cell, living on bread
and water ...It will be most useful to know from Monsieur Lauzun’s valet all
that has happened in the prison since he arrived there. If he has had any
dealings with anybody since he began the work, with what tools he did this
work and during what hours it was done. Also, what plans Monsieur
Lauzun had made for when he was beyond the prison and where he
intended to go. In other words, everything that Lauzun discussed with him
since he was placed with him. His Majesty wishes that in order to make this
valet talk, you do everything necessary to frighten him, including the threat
of being tortured and hung. However, he does not want anything else done
to him other than placing him in an isolated cell…You might have him
interrogated frequently by your lieutenant on all the above points and even
any others matters that you might think of and send me all information that
one can extract from him…
Interestingly, Louvois also instructed Saint-Mars to …question
Monsieur Lauzun’s valet to discover if Lauzun has had any communication
with Monsieur Fouquet…. As will be seen, four years later, in 1680, Saint-
Mars discovered a communication hole in a chimney that passed between
Lauzun and Fouquet’s apartments. Given that there is nothing in the prison
correspondence for 1676 to indicate that under the threat of torture and
death, Lauzun’s valet revealed that there was contact between Lauzun and
Fouquet, it is unlikely that the communication existed at that time.
In March 1676, Saint-Mars eventually found another valet for Lauzun,
but given that the first valet was still languishing in a prison cell for aiding
Lauzun to escape, the new valet simply became a replacement first valet.
Prior to placing the new valet with Lauzun, Louvois instructed Saint-Mars
to put the fear of god into him …You may give Monsieur Lauzun the son of
your sergeant from the fort of Ecluse who presents himself…having him
searched beforehand and making him swear to be faithful to you and to
warn you generally of all that happens to his knowledge……It would also
be useful that this valet you are going to give to Monsieur Lauzun is
persuaded that you intend to hang the one that you have withdrawn so that
he reflects upon what he should do…
After several months in one of Saint-Mars’s dungeons, the valet who
assisted Lauzun to escape requested to attend mass. Louvois permitted this,
but instructed Saint-Mars to continue with the valet’s harsh treatment until
he revealed all that he knew …It is reasonable to allow the valet of
Monsieur Lauzun to hear mass on feast days and Sundays but he is not to
be given anything else other than bread and water until he has declared to
you all that he knows about Monsieur Lauzun’s escape plans…
In June 1676, four months after Lauzun’s unsuccessful escape attempt,
Saint-Mars was advised of the imminent arrival of another state prisoner, a
captured spy named Dubreuil …In the next few days a prisoner named
Dubreuil who has been arrested in Alsace will be handed over to you… it is
important that you guard him securely…The King desires that you receive
him (Dubreuil) in the prison, where you may put him with the last prisoner
who was sent to you (The Monk). You will inform me from time to time what
is happening with regard to him…you will treat him in the manner that I
have informed you and you will have him hear the masses of Monsieur
Fouquet and Monsieur Lauzun on Sundays and holy days only…I send you
a letter which the named Dubreuil has written to the Archbishop of Lyon, in
which you will see that he claims to have important things to say for the
service of the King…make him understand that he must not have any hope
of leaving the prison without first revealing what he has to say, and in the
case that he wishes to do so in writing, give him paper and in order that he
may write and seal his letter in your presence. After which you will send it
to me. I must warn you that he is one of the biggest scoundrels in the world
and difficult to guard...
By November, the monk had become totally deranged and Louvois
needed to be reminded …who is with Sire Dubreuil whom you inform me is
so mad? Note his name and by whom he was brought to you and send me a
copy of the warrant which was sent to you at the time of his arrival so that I
can place it better in my head who he is…
By February 1677, the deranged Monk was misbehaving and needed to
be chastised …Since the threats that you made to the prisoner who is with
Dubreuil has already made him wise, you must not fail to repeat them from
time to time and if he misbehaves, correct him vigorously and in return you
will see that will become more reasonable than he has ever appeared to
you… However, Saint-Mars was concerned about striking a man of the
cloth and sought reassurance. Louvois replied ...It is true that those who
strike Priests in contempt of their appointment are excommunicated, but
one has liberty to chastise a Priest when one is in charge of his
behaviour…
Saint-Mars was given the option to move the deranged Monk into the
cell occupied by Lauzun’s valet who was still being punished for his
involvement in Lauzun’s escape attempt …Provided that the Monk is held
with the same security when put with Lauzun’s valet as he is with Sire
Dubreuil, the King leaves it to you to change his prison, or in the case that
you judge it appropriate to leave him with said Sire Dubreuil, to have him
restrained that he may not cause any harm…
Whilst Louis XIV would usually announce any improvements in the
conditions of his state prisoners around Christmastide, the end of 1676
brought no such joy to the prisoners of Pignerol, presumably as a
consequence of Lauzun’s escape attempt earlier that year. Louvois simply
informed Saint-Mars His majesty…recommends that you always show
Messrs. Fouquet and Lauzun all the fairness and kindness without
impacting on the…intentions of his Majesty…
The following year, the ageing Fouquet did receive some improvements
to his prison regime. He was permitted to receive medicines from his wife
and Louvois even organised the delivery of some tea from Paris which
Fouquet had requested. Lauzun received no improvements and later in
1677 his health declined according to a gullible witness! In October 1677,
Lauzun was permitted an exceptional visit from his sister and brother, and
Monsieur Isaarn the family lawyer, in order to resolve certain pressing
inheritance matters following the death of one of Lauzun’s relatives.
Louvois issued precise instructions to Saint-Mars as to how the family
meetings were to be conducted and Monsieur Isaarn was required to
provide Louvois a record of his prison visits, who as usual needed to know
all aspects of Lauzun’s behaviour so that he could report to Louis XIV.
During the meetings, held over several days, scenes of high emotion
were played out with great passion, with Lauzun taking centre stage and
who in modern times would surely have been awarded a best actor award!
…We arrived at Pignerol on a Sunday (24th October) at eight o’ clock in
the morning…We dined in the Governor’s rooms where Monsieur de Saint-
Mars...arrived about 4 o’ clock to meet Madame de Nogent (Lauzun’s
sister) and inform her that her brother had been ill for two weeks with fever
and had a cold on his chest, but that he would soon be better, and that as
such he was not yet able to leave his room or was in any state to hear about
his affairs. It was necessary to wait until the following Friday. As a
precaution Madame de Nogent and her brother were instructed to
command their servants to see nobody or make enquiries with any soldier
or inhabitant of the town regarding the prisoners in the gaol, and not to go
out from their lodgings too often.
The next Friday we went to the citadel...Monsieur de Saint-Mars did me
the kindness to take me alone in his room where he showed me the King’s
orders and asked me to comply with them…At two o’ clock having had
everyone else withdrawn, Saint-Mars asked us to enter into his room where
six chairs were arranged around a table. Monsieur de Saint-Mars left and
returned a moment later, leading the Count de Lauzun, supporting him
under the arm as he could hardly support himself.
On seeing this I confess that I was touched with pity as we noticed he
had a countenance so beaten, a face so pale, the little we could see under a
beard and moustache so long, eyes so full of sadness and languor, that it
was impossible not to be moved with compassion. I do not know how to
express the sadness of Madame his sister and Monsieur his brother. He was
given a chair near to the fire in front of the window, but he withdrew from
there saying in a very low voice and coughing that (light from) the large
window was hurting his eyes and the fire his head.
Monsieur de Saint-Mars placed him with his back to the window…
Madame Nogent could not contain her tears and we were there some time
without speaking after which I spoke to the Count de Lauzun…regarding
the document which I sent you (Louvois), a copy of which I gave to
Monsieur de Saint-Mars…
…The Count de Lauzun listened to me attentively and afterwards said
that he did not know who it was who was speaking to him, nor on whose
behalf…He said to me quite coldly that being six years in a tightly confined
prison and commencing his seventh, not having really spoken of his affairs
for such a long space of time and never having seen a single person, he was
so low in spirit and his mind so muddled that it was impossible to
understand anything that I was saying to him…
He confessed to me with ingenuity that...this was his fault and not mine.
Also, that he owed a great debt having obtained through the kindness of the
king the favour to see his sister…Also that as he was in great sadness not
because of the harshness of his prison but for having displeased the King,
from whom he was yet hoping for his favour and his pity, and on this, being
so moved with tears coming to his eyes that he held his handkerchief there
in silence...
Madame his sister was so touched and affected that she broke down in
tears…Monsieur le Comté then asked if the allotted time allowed by order
of the King had passed, the Commissioner told him there was still a quarter
of an hour, then he (Lauzun) said it was best he be led away than fail to
obey the orders of the King, at the same time raising himself and retiring in
silence with Monsieur de Saint-Mars. Madame de Nogent (his sister) could
no longer contain herself, bursting out in tears and trembling with such
force that she fainted…. Monsieur le Chevalier, his brother was equally
affected as his sister...
Variations on this scene were repeated over the following days
culminating in a final meeting in which Lauzun exceeded his previous
performances, prostrating himself on the floor and pleading for his sister to
intercede on his behalf with the King and beg for a royal pardon.

6
Chapter 20 - Improvements

Chapter 20
Improvements

In December 1677, after Lauzun’s family visit, the annual Christmastide

acts of royal munificence resumed. Some writers claim that these
improvements were granted as a result of Lauzun’s family interceding with
the French King on their return to Paris, however, the prison
correspondence shows that Louis XIV had already decided upon these
improvements before Lauzun’s family had arrived at Pignerol. Louvois
st
announced them in a letter dated the 1 November 1677 with an instruction
that Saint-Mars was not to implement them until after Lauzun’s family had
left Pignerol.
Fouquet and Lauzun were permitted to leave their cells and walk the
citadel ramparts to take the air. Saint-Mars was instructed to issue a
warning to both prisoners that they would revert to their previous prison
regime, if ever they abused this latest royal favour ...I have received your
rd
letter of the 23 of last month in which the King has seen the extreme desire
that Monsieur Lauzun has of having the liberty to sometimes take the air.
On which his Majesty asked me how the prison and surrounding areas were
laid out. I was pleased to tell him that I believed that you could guarantee
the security of the prisoners whilst allowing them to walk along the
ramparts of the prison three times a week. To which the King agreed and
commanded me to inform you that he desires that you allow them to take
the air three times per week one after the other in such a way that they have
no more communication with each other than they have presently, with
suitable precautions such that nothing prejudicial can happen and that they
may not communicate by word of mouth or in writing with anyone. This
grace extends only to Messrs Fouquet and Lauzun…in the hope that this
improves their health….
Prior to these latest improvements, Louis XIV’s instructions were that
both Fouquet and Lauzun were to remain in their apartments and not
allowed to fraternise together or with anyone else other than their valets.
Whilst it is possible that they might have observed each other at the Sunday
Mass, they were certainly not permitted to talk together. However, whilst
no official contact was permitted, this of course did not preclude
unauthorised contact taking place between the two prisoners, especially as
Fouquet’s apartment was located directly above Lauzun’s apartment.
Constantin de Renneville who was imprisoned in the Bastille from 1702,
describes how at night he used a simple, albeit laborious, stick-tapping
system to communicate with prisoners in the adjoining cells. Using a
simple code of one tap = A, two taps = B, etc., a communication of sorts
was possible between prisoners. It is possible that Lauzun and Fouquet
developed a similar communication system.
Louvois’s letter detailing the improvements included the following
paragraph …If to save you time and for your own convenience you would
like to have them (Fouquet and Lauzun) take the air together, his Majesty
permits this providing that you are present to hear all their conversations...
Whilst Louis XIV saw no difficulty in allowing Fouquet and Lauzun to
take their constitutional walk and even converse together, however whether
or not this would take place was left entirely to Saint-Mars’s discretion and
convenience. Saint-Mars raised objections to this proposal, presumably
because of the increased difficulty of guarding both prisoners at the same
time when outside their apartment-cells. Saint-Mars preferred that Lauzun
and Fouquet take their exercise separately, and in different locations, to
remove the risk of Fouquet and Lauzun leaving messages for each other.
Saint-Mars’s suggestion was approved …His Majesty approves that you
have Messrs Fouquet and Lauzun take the air at different times and in
different places…. Lauzun and Fouquet were however permitted to
separately fraternise and play games with Saint-Mars’s officers, during
their exercise periods.
As part of this latest royal favour, Fouquet and Lauzun’s valets were
permitted to take the air with their masters. On this point, Saint-Mars
sought certain clarifications and Louvois responded …His Majesty also
allows Lauzun and Fouquet’s valets to walk with them, that is to say the one
who is with Monsieur Lauzun (the replacement valet) to accompany his
master and those who are with Monsieur Fouquet (La Rivière and Eustache
Danger) to accompany their master, each time that they go out in turn….
This meant that after eight years, spent in solitary confinement, apart from
when acting as a valet to La Rivière when he was ill, Eustache Danger was
permitted to join Fouquet on his thrice weekly walks.
Some writers have made an unproven supposition that this instruction
meant that Eustache Danger had subsequently been permitted to work
permanently as a second valet alongside La Rivière and that both valets
could take the air at the same time with Fouquet and from this to
extrapolate another unproven supposition that the two valets must have
talked to each other and that Eustache Danger revealed to La Rivière details
of his past life and cause of imprisonment. There is no evidence whatsoever
that these two valets were permitted to serve Fouquet together at this time
and was in fact quite contrary to Louis XIV’s precise instructions on the
matter, issued back in January 1675 …His Majesty gives permission for the
prisoner brought by Monsieur de Vauroy to serve as a valet to Monsieur
Fouquet, but whatever might occur you must refrain from putting him with
Monsieur Lauzun, or with anyone else. That is to say that you can give the
said prisoner to Monsieur Fouquet when he does not have his valet (La
Rivière) and not otherwise...
The compliant Saint-Mars would not dare disobey such a precise order.
and queried this inconsistency in the new prison regime to which Louvois
replied …I have received your letter of the 11th of this month. I have
nothing to add to the liberty that the King wishes that you allow your
prisoners, to walk at the time prescribed and I leave it to you to do what
you consider appropriate regarding the two valets of Monsieur Fouquet
that you propose to accompany him… Given that Louvois’s reply and his
original orders for the new prison regime did not modify Louis XIV’s
original orders permitting Eustache Danger to work as a valet in Fouquet’s
apartment only when la Rivière was indisposed and had been withdrawn
from Fouquet’s apartment, it must be assumed that Eustache Danger only
accompanied Fouquet on his walks when standing-in for La Rivière.
Despite the significant improvements, Saint-Mars reported the
conversations he had with Lauzun and Fouquet, and any news from outside
th
the prison was strictly controlled …I see by your letter of the 16 of last
month the latest conversations you have had with your prisoners when
taking them for their walks. Continue to inform me of everything that they
tell you, and only let them know things that I inform you which are for their
attention…
The prison correspondence for 1678 shows no evidence of Fouquet or
Lauzun abusing these privileges and later that year, yet further
improvements were granted. The two prisoners were allowed to receive
gazettes and news sheets. Unfortunately, during the summer of that year,
the usual heat-related diseases and illnesses returned to Pignerol with a
vengeance and Fouquet fell ill once again and by late summer Lauzun too.
Fouquet recovered by the end of Summer, but Lauzun did not recover until
October... Louvois instructed Saint-Mars to …take good care of Lauzun… .
In July 1678, Saint-Mars requested permission for one of his trusted
lieutenants and nephew, Sire de Blainvilliers, to travel to Paris and tend to
some personal affairs of Saint-Mars. The visit was approved by Louis XIV,
but as there was no particular urgency Louis XIV ordered that the visit take
place during a quiet period when Saint-Mars had least need of his
Lieutenant. Five months later, in December 1678, Blainvilliers duly
travelled to Paris and on his arrival, he visited Louvois and handed over a
letter from Saint-Mars. Louvois replied ...I have met with Sire Blainvilliers
and will continue to chat with him from time to time during any leisure
hours I might have. I have however reported to the King on what he told me
concerning the condition of your prisoners and his Majesty having
reflected on this informs me that the valet of Monsieur Lauzun, which you
withdrew for aiding him to escape from prison, has been sufficiently
punished for his failures and that his freedom would not be prejudicial to
the King’s service. Therefore, the King has commanded me to inform you
that he is pleased that you free him and give him 100 Ecus to return to his
homeland…threatening him with being sent to the galleys if he approaches
within 50 leagues of Paris without the King’s permission…If you judge
there is something here which the King has not anticipated that might
prejudice the guarding of your prisoners you will report to the King before
executing this order…
Saint-Mars replied that Lauzun’s valet was in fact owed three years
wages to which Louvois responded …The King approves that you release
the valet who served Monsieur Lauzun and that you pay him the first three
years of wages that were held for him, so to give him the means to
withdraw himself…
In this same letter Louvois intriguingly refers to advice that Saint-Mars
had recently provided regarding Eustache Danger …His Majesty will take
advantage of the advice that you gave to him on the subject of the prisoner
that the Sire de Vauroy brought to you… Unfortunately, Saint-Mars’s letter
containing the advice is lost and some writers claim that Blainvilliers was
sent to Paris in order to exclusively advise Louvois on an urgent secret
matter concerning Eustache Danger. However, it is evident from the chain
of correspondence that Blainvilliers’s visit to Paris had been pre-planned
several months in advance to deal with Saint-Mrs personal affairs and that
his meeting with Louvois was nothing exceptional, were a routine letter
regarding prison matters was handed over. However, the advice that Saint-
Mars was asked to provide to Louvois concerning Eustache Danger is of
significant interest. There can be no doubt that this advice was connected to
another request for advice concerning Eustache Danger that Louvois made
rd
to Fouquet at this same time! On the 23 December 1678, just four days
before Louvois thanked Saint-Mars for the advice he provided about
Eustache Danger, Louvois sent another letter to Saint-Mars ...I enclose a
letter from myself to Monsieur Fouquet. It is the intention of the King that
you give it to Monsieur Fouquet sealed as you receive it and that you also
take into his apartment ink, paper a seal and wax, and that you leave it
there so that he can reply at his leisure, and that you send me the letter that
he gives you, with the seal unbroken…
Fouquet must have felt a great trepidation as he opened this first written
communication from the French Court since his arrest, but the letter
contained excellent news! …Monsieur, it is with much pleasure that I
execute the command that it has pleased the King to give me, which is to
inform you that his Majesty is disposed to shortly give some most
considerable improvements to your imprisonment… Arrested in September
1661, Fouquet had now spent over seventeen years in prison and would
doubtlessly have been overjoyed by such a demonstration of royal
munificence.
However, there was a catch. Before any improvements were granted
Fouquet was required to provide advice about Eustache Danger just as
Saint-Mars had recently done …but beforehand the King desires to be
informed whether the named Eustache, who has been given to serve you,
has not in front of the other valet (La Rivière) who serves you, spoken about
what he (Eustache) has seen* been employed at before arriving in
Pignerol…His Majesty has commanded me to question you about this and
to tell you that he expects you to respond without any reflection on the truth
in all this, so that he may take appropriate steps based on what he learns
from you about what the said Eustache might have said about his past life
to his comrade…
*The word “seen” was originally written on the draft of the letter but
crossed out and replaced with “been employed at.” It is not known whether
this was a rectification to correct a genuine error or whether the change in
wording was an attempt to conceal from curious eyes that Eustache
Danger’s imprisonment was due to something that “he had seen.”
Louvois’s letter concluded... The intention of his Majesty is that you
reply to this letter privately, without divulging anything it contains to
Monsieur de Saint-Mars. I join in the joy that the first part of this letter
must give to you…. This final command requiring Fouquet not to talk to
Saint-Mars about his reply, coupled with the fact that Fouquet’s response
was to be sealed before handing it to Saint-Mars, indicates that whatever
Saint-Mars had separately advised Louvois on the same matter, he would
not be privy to Fouquet’s advice on Eustache Danger.
Given that Saint-Mars’s original instruction for placing Eustache
Danger with Fouquet was that he was only allowed to do this when La
Rivière was indisposed and had first been removed from Fouquet’s
apartment. One can only presume that Saint-Mars diligently followed these
precise orders and that consequently Eustache Danger and La Rivière never
met. Yet, Louvois’s request to both Fouquet and Saint-Mars for advice on
the matter, indicates that there was uncertainty at the French Court as to
whether this order had been fully implemented and of the possibility that
Eustache Danger may have met and divulged information about his past
life to La Rivière.
rd
Louvois’s letter to Fouquet is dated the 23 December 1678. Allowing
the usual ten days for an ordinary courier to deliver this letter to Pignerol,
nd
Fouquet would not have received it before the 2 January 1679, even later
if the winter snows in the Alps were bad that year. Fouquet’s reply is dated
th
the 6 of January 1679, being just four days later. Whilst Fouquet’s reply is
th
lost, it could not have arrived at the French Court before the 16 January,
or even later if the winter snow conditions were bad.
Whatever Fouquet divulged to the French Court about La Rivière’s
knowledge of Eustache Danger’s past life, Louis XIV deemed that
Fouquet’s response was truthful and satisfactory, which together with
similar advice received from Saint-Mars, permitted Louis XIV to grant the
promised improvements to Fouquet’s imprisonment, just four days later …I
have received the letter that you took the trouble to write to me on the sixth
of this month. You will learn from Monsieur de Saint-Mars about the
improvement that it pleases the King to now provide to your imprisonment.
I do not doubt that your good conduct and your punctuality in complying
with what he tells you regarding the intentions of his Majesty will bring you
shortly even more considerable and favourable grants of
improvement…Monsieur de Saint-Mars will inform you that you may write
to Madame Fouquet and the rest of your family as often as you desire.
Monsieur Saint-Mars has been ordered to send to me all your letters and I
assure you that I will take particular care to deliver those which are open
to those to whom you would wish to send your news…
Louvois’s letter to Fouquet continued with details of new security
precautions that were to be implemented regarding Eustache Danger …You
will learn by Monsieur de Saint-Mars the precautions that the King desires
to be taken to prevent Eustache Danger from having communication with
anyone but yourself. His Majesty expects that you will take care to
contribute to this since you know of what consequence it is that nobody
learns of what he knows*…
*This letter coupled with Louvois’s earlier letter to Fouquet reveals that
Eustache Danger had been imprisoned. for something that he had either a)
seen, b) been employed at, or c) knew, which for convenience, is
collectively referred to from now on as “Danger’s Secret.”
Louis XIV’s munificence did not end there. Further improvements to
Fouquet’s prison regime were promised. Louvois continued …It gives me
pleasure to announce further significant improvements, even the
satisfaction of having near you your children which you desire. The
intention of his Majesty nonetheless is that in letters that you write to them,
you do not indicate any knowledge of this decision of his Majesty as he will
permit them to go to Pignerol when he judges it appropriate, believing that
this might be towards the end of next April…
By the same courier, Saint-Mars received new instructions from the
French Court which were clearly predicated on ensuring that neither
Lauzun or any visitors to Fouquet’s apartment must never learn of Eustache
Danger’s secret presence there …Memo for the manner by which the King
desires that Monsieur de Saint-Mars guards in the future, the prisoners who
are in his charge. – Each time that Monsieur Fouquet is to go down to
Monsieur Lauzun’s room or Monsieur Lauzun or any visitor is to go up
to Monsieur Fouquet’s room, Monsieur de Saint-Mars will take care to
withdraw the named Eustache and only put him back into Monsieur
Fouquet’s room when there is only Monsieur Fouquet and his long-time
valet (La Rivière). The same shall happen when Monsieur Fouquet walks
in the citadel, the said Eustache is to be kept in Monsieur Fouquet’s room
and only allowed to accompany Monsieur Fouquet on the walk when he
goes alone with his long-time valet (La Rivière) in the place where for some
time his Majesty has seen fit for Monsieur de Saint-Mars to have him take
the air…. It is notable that Eustache Danger and La Rivière were, from now
onwards, permitted to remain together in Fouquet’s appartement.
Whilst Fouquet and Lauzun began to enjoy their new, more relaxed
prison regime, during the early months of 1679, Saint-Mars received two
new state prisoners which would confound the task of unmasking the Man
in the Iron Mask!

6
Chapter 21 - Complications

Chapter 21
Complications

During 1678, Louis XIV secretly negotiated the purchase of the Alpine
fortress of Casal from the Duke of Mantou. The negotiations were carried
out through an intermediary, Count Hercule Antoine Matthioli who
subsequently betrayed Louis XIV by revealing details of the secret deal to
the Spanish and Italians. Abbé d’Estrades, the French ambassador to the
Savoie Court in Turin, learned of Matthioli’s treachery and duly informed
Louis XIV, proposing that Matthioli might be abducted near Turin and
taken to nearby Pignerol.
th
Louis XIV authorised Matthioli’s abduction and on the 27 April 1679,
orders were issued to Saint-Mars to prepare a cell for a new prisoner …The
King has sent orders to the Abbé d’Estrades to try to arrest a man the
conduct of which his Majesty has reason to be dissatisfied. He has
commanded me to inform you, so that you do not object to receiving him
when he is sent to you, and that you guard him in such a manner that not
only may he have no communication with anyone, but that he may have
reason to repent his bad conduct, and that it cannot be discovered that you
have a new prisoner…
 Captain Catinat, a future Marshal of France was already secretly
waiting in Pignerol for orders to take possession of Casal on behalf of
Louis XIV. He was now ordered to carry out Matthioli’s abduction. Abbé
d’Estrades was instructed to lure Matthioli to a meeting in some remote
country area where the abduction could take place without causing a
scandal …The King has seen the confidential information in your letter that
Madame the Duchesse of Savoie has revealed to you about the
perfidiousness of Count Matthioli…Since you believe that you can have him
abducted without causing any incident, his Majesty desires that you execute
your plan…and that you have him escorted to Pignerol…arrangements are
to be made to meet him…in an isolated place, if possible in the
countryside…if it is true that the Duke of Mantou has not signed the
ratification (of the treaty) and that he (Matthioli) was responsible for this, it
would be right that you seize him and apprehend him…It is not necessary
that you inform the Duchess of Savoie of this order that his Majesty sends
you. It is necessary that nobody knows what has become of this man…
This last sentence coupled with Saint-Mars separate instruction, leaves no
doubt that Louis XIV’s intention was to secretly incarcerate Matthioli in
such a manner that he would cease to exist.
rd
Matthioli’s abduction took place without incident and on the 3 May
1679, Catinat wrote to the French Court ...Yesterday, I arrested Matthioli,
three miles from here (Pignerol), on the King’s territory during a meeting
which Abbé d’Estrades ingeniously convened between himself, Matthioli
and myself...To implement the plan, I was only served by the Sire de Saint-
Martin and Sire de Villebois, officers of Saint-Mars and by four men from
his company. It was carried out without any violence, and no one knows the
name of this rogue, not even the officers who helped me arrest him. He is in
the cell which the man named Dubreuil occupied. He will be treated civilly
according to the request of the Abbé d’Estrades, until the wishes of the
King on the subject are known…I have given him the name Lestang,
nobody knowing who he is…
Over the following days Catinat was interrogated, and his guilt
established beyond doubt. Catinat forced Matthioli to write a note to his
valet instructing him to bring his master’s belongings to Pignerol. Sadly, for
undertaking this innocent task Matthioli’s valet would like his master, lose
his freedom forever. Louvois now instructed Saint-Mars …The intention of
the King is that Sire Lestang (Matthioli) is not to be well treated. His
Majesty does not wish you give him anything whatever, that might make it
(his imprisonment) more agreeable for him apart from what is necessary to
live...
By February 1680, within a year of being placed in the prison, Matthioli
had become insane …Lestang (Matthioli) has become like the Monk in my
care…subject to fits of raving madness, from which the Sire Dubreuil is
also not exempt …Lestang, who has been in my custody for almost a year,
complains that he is not treated as a man of his quality and the minister of
a great prince should be. I think his wits have turned based on what he tells
me. He talks every day with God and his angels. They have informed him of
the death of the Duke of Mantou and the Duke of Lorraine and as clear
proof of his madness, he has the honour to be a close relative of the King,
to whom he wishes to write and complain of the treatment he gets from me.
Seeing that he is not in his right senses I have no wish to give him paper
and pen for that…
In the summer of 1680, Saint-Mars requested permission to put
Matthioli in the same cell as the Monk …I have seen from your letter of the
th
7 of this month, the suggestion that you have of placing Lestang
(Matthioli) with the Monk to avoid the necessity of two Priests. The King
approves your suggestion and you have only to carry it out …. After
moving Matthioli into the Monk’s cell, Saint-Mars reported on the antics of
the two prisoners …For four or five days after your Lordship allowed me to
place Matthioli with the Dominican in the Lower Tower, Matthioli thought
the Dominican was a man I had put there to keep an eye on what he did.
Matthioli, who is almost as mad as the Dominican, strode up and down
with his cloak over his nose, shouting that he was not fooled…The
Dominican simply sat on his bed with his elbows on his knees and watched
him gravely without listening. Signor Matthioli, convinced that he was a
spy that we had planted, was disabused when one day the Dominican got
out of bed, stark naked, and began to preach a sermon, if you could call it
that, altogether without rhyme or reason. My lieutenants and I saw all their
antics through a hole above the door…
Two months later, Saint-Mars informed Louvois about another incident
concerning Matthioli…To give my lord, a fuller explanation than I have
done thus far regarding this diamond ring which Monsieur Matthioli gave
to Blainvilliers…I believe it was as much out of fear as anything that he
gave it to him. The prisoner had insulted him to his face and had even
written malicious things about him in charcoal on the walls of his cell,
which obliged the officer to threaten him with severe discipline unless he
was more polite and better behaved in the future. When he (Matthioli) was
put into the Tower with the Monk, I ordered Blainvilliers to show him a
cudgel and warn him that with such a thing bedlamites become reasonable
men and we know how to make him sensible if he did not become so. Some
days after giving this warning, when Blainvilliers took him his dinner, he
(Matthioli) said to him. 'Sir, here is a little ring which I want you to have
and which I beg you to accept'. Blainvilliers in answer told him that he took
nothing from prisoners and would take it only to hand it over to me (Saint-
Mars). I do believe it is worth as much as fifty or sixty Pistoles… Louvois
responded …You must keep the ring which Monsieur Matthioli gave to
Monsieur Blainvilliers so that you can give it back to him if ever the King
orders his release...
In the foregoing correspondence and as seen in earlier correspondence,
Saint-Mars interchangeably used the expressions, the Lower Tower and the
Tower when referring to the same tower. This is consistent with other
evidence previously presented that Eustache Danger’s special secure cell
was located in the Lower Tower (above the King’s wine cellar). It is also
known that the only other two Towers within the prison were not used to
lodge prisoners, one contained the prison chapel and the other was use as
accommodation for prison staff. Matthioli was clearly imprisoned in the
Lower Tower in the same cell as the Deranged Monk. In the same tower
were also Dubreuil the spy and Matthioli’s valet.
It is also known that Eustache Danger’s secure cell was originally
located in the Lower Tower, however since Louis XIV’s latest instructions
for guarding Eustache Danger he was allowed to serve Fouquet along with
La Rivière. These instructions however contained inconsistencies and both
Fouquet and Saint-Mars wrote to the French Court on the matter. Louvois
responded to Fouquet …I read to the King the letter that you took the
rd
trouble to write to me on the 3 of the month. He desires not to reply other
than to inform you that his Majesty desires to leave to you the conduct to be
taken with regard to Eustache Danger… Louvois also wrote separately to
Saint-Mars instructing him to liaise with Fouquet …His Majesty leaves it to
you to arrange with Monsieur Fouquet, as you judge best for the security of
Eustache Danger, recommending to you above all to do it such that he does
not talk to anyone in private… Clearly Louis XIV had no wish to be
involved with micromanaging day-to-day security arrangements for
Eustache Danger. During 1679 and the early part of 1680 Fouquet
frequently received family visits, so unfortunately on these occasions
Eustache Danger had to be withdrawn from Fouquet’s apartment.
Throughout 1679, Fouquet and Lauzun continued to enjoy their new
prison regime and allowed to fraternise together. Louvois informed
Fouquet’s wife … It is true that Monsieur Fouquet has the freedom to see
Monsieur Lauzun, and to eat with and walk with him…I have received the
letters that you have written to me the 7th of this month and have addressed
them to Monsieur de Saint-Mars, with an order to hand them to Monsieur
Fouquet. I will do the same from now onwards with all those that it pleases
you to send me.
Louis XIV had promised Fouquet further improvements and these were
duly implemented. In May 1679, Fouquet’s family was allowed to visit
Pignerol. Lauzun’s family was also allowed the same privilege, and after
they left Pignerol, Louis XIV further granted Fouquet’s family the liberty to
remain. Madame Fouquet was even allowed to stay overnight in her
husband’s apartment.
During this time Lauzun and Fouquet’s other contacts with the outside
world were restricted to fraternising with the local military personnel and a
few trusted citizens from the town of Pignerol. Despite the improved prison
regime however over the course of 1679, Lauzun became more and more
disenchanted with his incarceration and his behaviour deteriorated.

6
Chapter 22 - Misbehaviour

Chapter 22
Misbehaviour

By August 1679, Saint-Mars was at his wits end with Lauzun’s

misbehaviour and sought permission for his nephew and trusted Lieutenant,
Blainvilliers to travel to Paris to report directly to Louvois on the matter.
Louvois replied …Since you have something to advise me about which you
cannot confide in a letter, you may send Sire de Blainvilliers to report to me
on it... On his arrival, Blainvilliers relayed Saint-Mars’s verbal message to
Louvois. At the same time, Blainvilliers handed over a routine prison letter
from Saint-Mars on which Louvois responded …Your letter of the 2nd of
this month has been handed to me by Sire Blainvilliers, together with those
that were attached that Messrs Fouquet and Lauzun had given to you which
I will forward to their destinations and send you any replies. Please provide
me with news on the health of Eustache Danger, and of what is happening
amongst your prisoners...
One might assume on first reading of this letter, that the reason for
Blainvilliers’s urgent journey to Paris concerned Eustache Danger.
However, Saint-Mars had informed Louvois that he was unable to put into
writing the confidential message which could only be conveyed orally by
Blainvilliers. Louvois’s written response merely dealt with some routine
prison matters arising from Saint-Mars’s letter. The confidential matter
which Saint-Mars could not put in writing is however revealed in
subsequent prison correspondence.
Even before Saint-Mars received Louvois’s letter advising him of
Blainvilliers arrival in Paris, Saint-Mars had second thoughts about the
th
message to be conveyed orally by Blainvilliers and on the 20 September,
Saint-Mars wrote to Louvois asking him not to approach Lauzun’s family
about the sensitive matter. Then, just three days after sending this letter and
still before receiving any response from Louvois, Saint-Mars felt a need
once again to put pen to paper. Saint-Mars’s two letters are lost but Louvois
replies clearly show that the oral message relayed by Blainvilliers related to
Lauzun’s unacceptable behaviour and had nothing to do with Eustache
Danger.
th
On the 30 September Louvois replied …I have received your letter of
the 20th of this month and as you desire, I will not speak to the Monsieur
Lauzun’s family. But if I learn by your letters that this continues, I will
report the matter to the King, it not being acceptable that a man who holds
such a position as Monsieur Lauzun, takes the liberty to insult people that
have done him nothing more than to follow the orders of his Majesty. I have
no doubt that during his outbursts he does not care whether his Majesty
hears about it. The next time a similar thing happens please tell him that
you will place him back under his original (prison) regime and if he wishes
to complain, give him paper and ink to write whatever he pleases on which
you will write your reasons below and send it to his Majesty...
st
On the 1 October, Louvois replied to Saint-Mars second letter …Your
letter of the 23rd of last month has been received. I will discuss again with
Sire Blainvilliers about the conduct of your prisoners, but whatever he
(Blainvilliers) says to me I am persuaded that you can do no better as
regards Monsieur Lauzun than to follow the advice that I gave you by my
last letter, because certainly with the mood that he is now in nothing will
constrain him better than making him see that the King could be informed
of his weak behaviour…
So, what was Lauzun’s “weak behaviour” that Saint-Mars could not
confide in a letter sent by the Ordinary post? In July 1679, Fouquet’s wife
and eldest son (the Marquis de Vaux) left Pignerol on family business and
would not return until the latter end of 1679. During their absence, Louis
XIV gave permission for Fouquet’s sixteen-year-old daughter Marie-
Madeleine to remain in Pignerol to be near her father. In her memoirs
Marie-Madeleine bitterly recalls the unrequited amorous advances that
Lauzun made to her at Pignerol. Saint-Mars clearly could not use the
Ordinary Post to raise such a sensitive matter concerning persons of a
higher social rank than his own. There was also the risk that one of
Louvois’s clerks might read the letter and it would become the talk of the
town. It is thus evident that Saint-Mars sent Blainvilliers to inform Louvois
about Lauzun’s misbehaviour and not about Eustache Danger as wrongly
claimed by some historians.
Throughout the remainder of 1679, Lauzun continued abusing his new-
found freedom. He was suspected of concealing money, sending a secret
messenger to Paris and plotting with a military officer and his wife to make
contact with Mademoiselle, the King’s cousin who Lauzun nearly married.
Saint-Mars informed Louvois of each indiscretion and identified the people
aiding Lauzun. In October 1679, Louvois responded …You must not allow
the Captain of the Sainte Regiment whom you suspect from having further
communication with Monsieur Lauzun. As regards Monsieur Herleville, he
must only speak to Monsieur Lauzun when one of your officers is present,
who can hear and see everything that passes between them. If you suspect
the Jesuit Priest, you must not allow him to speak with or see Lauzun. Also
Inform me how you know that Monsieur Lauzun has at least fifty Pistolles,
his Majesty not deeming it appropriate that his prisoners have money. You
must ask Monsieur Lauzun to hand over what he has and make him
understand that whenever he would like to spend or buy something you will
pay the supplier…
Lauzun’s misconduct did not improve and Saint-Mars was obliged once
again to write to the French Court in mid-October 1679. This time Louvois
lost patience and rebuked Saint-Mars, telling him that he must stand up to
Lauzun …I have received your letter of the 14th of this month on which I
have only to repeat to you what I have already informed you, which is that
you must not suffer whatever it be from Monsieur Lauzun and that upon the
least outburst that he makes, you declare to him that you will lock him up
for as many days that you judge appropriate, bearing in mind that the more
he sees that you act with patience the more his contempt and outbursts will
increase, whilst instead if he sees your firmness in executing the King’s
orders and that he is treated fairly he will correct himself without doubt or
at least pretend to do so and live with you as he ought to do. I am writing to
Monsieur de Herleville to inform him that it is only appropriate for him and
his wife to visit messrs Lauzun and Fouquet three or four times per year. As
regards the Jesuit Priest who you suspect, do not permit him to enter the
prison and when he comes there have him informed that you are indisposed
and treat any others that you suspect in the same way and do not permit
them to enter the prison. Do not forget to confiscate the money that
Monsieur Lauzun has, as I have ordered you previously, nothing being
more dangerous to a gaoler than letting him (Lauzun) have such
ammunition…. The same letter also contained instructions to confine
Lauzun’s valet to his room …the valet of Monsieur Lauzun must not leave
his room or have communication with anybody…
Even before receiving Louvois’s reply Saint-Mars wrote again. This
time he expressed his concern for an unnamed female who had been
secretly providing Saint-Mars with intelligence on Lauzun. Louvois
responded …Nobody will know from whom you discovered about the
money which Monsieur Lauzun has on him. I suggest you cultivate her to
try and learn what else she might know about Monsieur Lauzun, for
example if he has had a reply to the courier that he sent to Paris. There is
no apparent way that I could enquire from Monsieur Fouquet about what
he knows regarding Monsieur Lauzun. Try to get him (Fouquet) to write to
me without letting him know that I have asked you to approach him…
This last sentence implies that the lady in question was someone
connected with Fouquet. At this time the only female known to visit
Fouquet was his daughter. Louvois later changed his mind and warned
Saint-Mars that …You must not assume that Lauzun would never know by
which means you are informed about what is Monsieur Lauzun’s mind. Also
do not forget to find out if it is true that Madame Herleville has had contact
with Mademoiselle (the King’s cousin) and inform me about everything that
you learn…
Despite his continuing misconduct, the following month Lauzun was
permitted an unusual royal favour ...The King allows Monsieur Lauzun to
have four young horses to occupy him during the day providing that they
are kept in the prison stables and providing he does not ride them in the
(prison) courtyard or on the bastion where he takes the air … I have read
Monsieur Lauzun’s letter to the King in which he asks for a domestic to
look after his horses, to which the King has refused and if he (Lauzun)
wants to have them (the horses), your own stable lads will care for them
and the horses will be brought to him by one of your officers... Presumably
Lauzun was allowed to keep horses in the hope that it would reduce his
disruptive behaviour.
In November 1679, Lauzun was suspected of making unauthorised
contact with people outside Pignerol and Louvois instructed Saint-Mars to
make a pair of duplicate letter seals, give one to Lauzun and keep the other
to reseal Lauzun’s letters after secretly reporting on their contents to
Louvois.
The same month the military commander at Pignerol complained that
the gates between the citadel and the town were being opened at night for
visitors going to and from the prison to see Lauzun. Louvois informed
Saint-Mars that the King required order to be restored and instructed the
Town Governor to ensure that the gates were remained locked at night.
Some travellers passing through Pignerol at this time also paid
unauthorised visits to Lauzun and Fouquet and measures were put in place
to prevent this reoccurring …You would do well not to let your prisoners
see any strangers that come to Pignerol. It is necessary to execute this
order in such a manner that they do not apprehend that you have received
such an order…whilst it is not significant whether Sire le Notre has or has
not seen your prisoners, I must repeat what I have already instructed you,
that the King’s orders do not permit such liberties and to restrict such visits
to officers and inhabitants of the town and the citadel, which you will
please comply with from now on…
During the early months of 1680, a series of events occurred at the
prison which would forever seal the fate of Fouquet’s two valets, Eustache
Danger and La Rivière!

6
Chapter 23 - Salvation

Chapter 23
Salvation

In contrast to Lauzun’s misconduct, Fouquet’s behaviour throughout

1679 could not have been more exemplary. However, Towards the end of
1679, Fouquet and Lauzun fell out, allegedly because of Lauzun’s improper
behaviour towards Fouquet’s daughter. Louvois, on learning of the rift,
instructed Saint-Mars to use this opportunity to try and obtain information
from each disgruntled party about the other.
In December 1679 Lauzun fell ill, but recovered soon after. The
following month, Fouquet also fell ill and pleaded to leave Pignerol to visit
a health spa, but this was refused. Louvois informed Fouquet …when I
spoke to the King on this, he did not reply… However, Louis XIV permitted
Fouquet’s daughter to stay with her ailing father and Saint-Mars was
instructed to prepare a room for her in the attic above Fouquet’s apartment
…The King is pleased to permit you to construct a stairway and a chimney
in Monsieur Fouquet’s ante-chamber in order to be able to lodge his
daughter above his apartment provided that this will not cause any
inconvenience and that you can guarantee the security of Monsieur
Fouquet…
At this time Louis XIV granted permission for Fouquet’s brother, the
Bishop of Agde to come to Pignerol, but before setting out on the journey
to Pignerol, Fouquet’s brother died. Over the following months Fouquet’s
illness did not abate. In February 1680, Louvois sent medicines from Paris
and a surgeon was called. Louis XIV also permitted Fouquet’s eldest son,
the Marquis de Vaux to return to Pignerol.
Then in March 1680, Louvois learned from an unnamed source at
Pignerol that Lauzun and Fouquet had been secretly communicating with
each other when in their apartments. Louvois informed Saint-Mars …You
will see from the attached memoir the advice that I am given of how the
prisoners communicate with each other without your knowledge. Please
verify whether there is any truth in this and inform me what you discover…
th
The memoir accompanying the letter dated the 11 March has been lost,
but it would have taken ten or eleven days for the letter and memoir to
st nd
arrive at Pignerol by the Ordinary post, arriving about the 21 /22 March
1680. Whilst investigating the illicit communications, Saint-Mars searched
Fouquet and Lauzun’s apartments and discovered a communication hole in
a chimney which passed between their apartments. At this very same time
Fouquet died suddenly! According to contemporary reports he died of
apoplexy (a cerebral haemorrhage or stroke). It is highly likely that
Fouquet’s already poor health took a turn for the worse when Saint-Mars
discovered the communication hole. Fouquet’s hard-earned privileges
might now be withdrawn.
Saint-Mars immediately despatched an express courier to the French
Court to advise them of Fouquet’s death and the news quickly circulated
around Paris towards the end of March 1680 and a formal notice of
Fouquet’s death was published in the Paris Gazette on the 6th April. In his
letter, Saint-Mars informed Louvois that he was of the opinion that Lauzun
must know important matters that Fouquet was acquainted with and that the
valet, La Rivière must know them too! Undoubtedly one of these important
matters was that Lauzun must know about Eustache Danger’s secret
presence in Fouquet’s apartment, despite the special measures that were
taken to ensure that Lauzun was never learnt about Eustache Danger’s
secret presence in Pignerol! …The King has learned from the letter you
wrote to me on the twenty-third of last month about the death of Monsieur
Fouquet and of your opinion that Monsieur Lauzun knows most of the
important things that Monsieur Fouquet was acquainted with and that
the named La Rivière knows them too…
Louis XIV’s response to the news was quite incredible! Saint-Mars was
instructed to undertake an elaborate cover-up operation, the purpose of
which was to persuade Lauzun that Eustache Danger was an
inconsequential prison valet! Saint-Mars was instructed to inform Lauzun
that both Eustache Danger and La Rivière had been released shortly after
Fouquet’s death, whilst at the same time secretly incarcerating them in a
secure cell so that Lauzun could never discover their continuing presence in
the prison! …his Majesty has commanded me to inform you that after
having sealed up the hole through which without your knowledge, Messrs
Fouquet and Lauzun communicated with each other, and rebuilt it so
solidly that no one can tamper in that area again, to also have the staircase
dismantled which leads from the late Monsieur Fouquet’s apartment to the
room (above) that you had prepared for Mademoiselle his daughter. His
Majesty also commands that you lodge Monsieur Lauzun in the room of the
late Monsieur Fouquet and that you persuade Monsieur Lauzun that
Eustache Danger and La Rivière have been set free and to say the same
to all those who ask you for news of them. That, nevertheless you shut
both of them in a place where you can assure his Majesty, that they will
not have any communication with anyone whatsoever, whether by word
of mouth or in writing, and that Monsieur Lauzun will not be able to
perceive that they are locked up there.
Saint-Mars also received reproach for allowing Fouquet’s sons to take
some papers belonging to his father ...You were wrong to allow Monsieur
de Vaux (Fouquet’s son) to remove Fouquet’s papers and poetry. You ought
to have had them locked in his room to be dealt with as deemed fit by the
King. You may dispose of the furniture belonging to his Majesty, which was
used by Monsieur Fouquet as you see fit…As for the rest, you must be
persuaded that his Majesty will grant you marks of satisfaction for your
services when the occasion presents itself, which I will take care to have
done with much pleasure…
On being informed Lauzun objected to being moved out of his
apartment and Louvois was obliged to repeat Louis XIV’s command to
Saint-Mars …His Majesty requires that you lodge Monsieur Lauzun in the
apartment of the late Monsieur Fouquet. His Majesty would be greatly
surprised that if after the inconvenience Monsieur Lauzun has suffered
from the dampness in his own apartment that he does not consider this
change to be a royal favour...
When Lauzun realised that he would be moved into Fouquet’s
apartment, he requested the use of the room which had been vacated by
Fouquet’s daughter to which Louvois replied …I do not see any likelihood
of Monsieur Lauzun being granted the rooms that Mlle Fouquet occupied
due to their lack of security and so he must accept to reside in the
apartment of the late Monsieur Fouquet, although he may choose to sleep
in the main chamber or the ante-chamber as he thinks best…
Louvois’s instructions for the Eustache Danger cover-up operation were
dated the 8th April 1670. They would have arrived at Pignerol on or after
th
the 19 April and Saint-Mars announced the fake news of the release of
Eustache Danger and La Rivière from Pignerol on or shortly after this date.
It is no coincidence whatsoever that from this same date onwards Eustache
Danger and La Rivière are not mentioned again by name in the Pignerol
correspondence (apart from a couple of months later, when Eustache is
mentioned retrospectively with regard to Fouquet’s possessions.
In order to conceal Eustache Danger and La Rivière’s continuing
presence at the prison, new aliases were needed when mentioning them in
prison correspondence and again it is no coincidence that from this same
time onwards, two previously unmentioned prisoners appear in the
correspondence under the apt cover-name of, “the two prisoners of the
Lower Tower” which is simply a plural version of Eustache Danger’s prison
alias attributed to him because of his initial incarceration in a specially
constructed cell located in the Lower Tower.
New prison aliases were clearly required for Eustache Danger and La
Rivière and it is no coincidence that shortly after their secret incarceration,
Louvois wrote in July 1680 …It will be sufficient to have the prisoners of
the Lower Tower make their confessions once a year... This instruction
conveniently removed the need for Eustache Danger and La Rivière to
leave their secure cell until Easter Week of the following year. In 1681.
Louvois also asked Saint-Mars to submit a full list of prisoners under his
care and was specifically told to simply describe the two prisoners of the
Lower Tower as such, without providing any further mention of their
identity.
Despite this compelling evidence, some historians have argued that any
two of the six prisoners now guarded by Saint-Mars might be the two
Prisoners of the Lower Tower (Dubreuil the spy, the insane Monk,
Matthioli and his valet, Eustache Danger and La Rivière). Any two might
be the two prisoners of the Lower Tower. However, this line of argument
totally disregards other evidence that the other four prisoners continue to be
separately mentioned by name in the prison correspondence after Fouquet’s
death. It is also notable that unlike the harsh treatment meted out to these
other four other prisoners, the prison regime of the two prisoners of the
Lower Tower was not harsh, being consistent with the mild treatment that
Eustache Danger and La Rivière had previously received. It is also notable
that Eustache Danger’s specially constructed isolation cell which was built
in 1669, was located in the Lower Tower and eleven years earlier, it would
have been the ideal place to secretly place these two valets. Joining all
these dots together leads to the inescapable conclusion, that in mid-April
1680, Eustache Danger and La Rivière ceased to exist in name, and were
secretly incarcerated in Pignerol under the new cover name, the two
prisoners of the Lower Tower.
A month after being secretly incarcerated, there is one final
retrospective mention to Eustache Danger by name in the prison
correspondence. In May 1680, Saint-Mars informed Louvois that some
items had been found in Fouquet’s clothes. They were likely discovered
during a final search prior to handing over Fouquet’s body and possessions
to his family which took place at this time. There was some delay in
sending these items to Louvois as he was away from the French Court. Le
Tellier, Louvois’s father, who was standing in for his son at the time asked
Saint-Mars to send the items to the French Court together with any other
documents that had been recovered from Fouquet’s son, the Marquis de
Vaux. However, when Louvois finally returned to the French Court, the
nd
items had still not been despatched and on the 22 June Louvois informed
Saint-Mars …With regard to the separate note which accompanied your
letter of the 8th, you were wrong not to inform me immediately of what it
contained after you had been informed of it. In any case, please send me…
what you have found in the pockets of Monsieur Fouquet, in order that I
may present them to his Majesty… After some further delay, the items were
th
finally sent to Louvois, who replied on the 10 July with the last reference
to Eustache Danger by name …I received your letter of the 4th of this
month and that which was attached of which I will make use as necessary…
Inform me how the man named Eustache has done what you sent me and
where he was able to get the drugs that he needed to do it, hardly believing
that you supplied them to him….
Some writers have relied on this letter to develop an unsubstantiated
theory that Fouquet never died and somehow survived and became one of
the two prisoners of the Lower Tower, despite overwhelming evidence to
the contrary including the subsequent removal of Fouquet’s body from
Pignerol and subsequent internment in Paris - see appendix). Another
totally unsubstantiated theory alleges that Louvois ordered Eustache
Danger to poison Fouquet. These, and other theories, conveniently ignore
the overwhelming evidence that the two prisoners of the Lower Tower were
Eustache Danger and La Rivière.
There is a footnote in Louvois’s letter to Saint-Mars for the Eustache
Danger cover-up operation (the aim of which was clearly intended to
convince Lauzun that Eustache Danger was an inconsequential valet) …I
am adding these words to tell you that you must not enter into any
discourse or confidence with Monsieur Lauzun regarding what he may
have learned from Monsieur Fouquet… To this was added a warning (as if
Saint-Mars did not already know) …and further that whenever you find
Lauzun kind and obliging to you, you must renew all the more your
precautions for guarding him, because no other man in the world is more
capable of dissimulation than he….
Following Fouquet’s death and the Eustache Danger cover-up operation,
Lauzun was as desperate as ever to be far away from Pignerol and during
the remainder of 1680 his behaviour worsened. Contrary to Louis XIV’s
commands, Lauzun continued to secretly communicate with friends and
supporters outside of the prison. In the same month that Fouquet died,
Saint-Mars wrote three letters to Louvois over a six-day period advising
th
him about Lauzun’s continuing misconduct. On the 26 March 1680 an
th
increasingly irate Louvois replied …I have received your letters of the 12 ,
th th
16 and 17 of this month which need no reply other than the King requires
that after having explained to Monsieur Lauzun that the King desires that
he does not write to whoever it may be, that his letters pass through no
other hands than mine and that he receives no letters other than those that I
send to you to give to him, the King desires that you give him the freedom
prescribed by his orders which I have sent you and which he enjoyed prior
to the suspicion of his Majesty that he sent a messenger from there. Please
have care, by giving him the satisfaction that he might reasonably desire on
the foregoing and in restraining him and yourself, to within the boundaries
as prescribed by the said orders of his Majesty….
In May 1680, Saint-Mars sought permission to replace Lauzun’s valet
as he could not be trusted. Louvois replied …One can only laud your
proposal to replace Monsieur Lauzun’s valet since you do not judge it
appropriate to leave him with the one that he currently has…You may free
the valet warning him that if he approaches within 10 leagues of Pignerol
he would be sent to the Galleys…
Throughout the remainder of 1680 and the early part of 1681 Lauzun’s
nd
behaviour showed no improvement. Then on the 22 April 1681, just over
a year after Fouquet’s death, as suddenly as Lauzun had arrived at Pignerol,
he was removed. Louvois notified Saint-Mars ...Monsieur de Maupertuis
will leave here tomorrow or the day after to deliver to you a release
warrant and will take charge of Monsieur Lauzun… Lauzun was escorted
to the spa town of Bourbon-l’Archanbault then later released on condition
that he kept away from the French Court.
Having now lost his two most prestigious prisoners (Fouquet and
Lauzun) Saint-Mars requested a posting away from Pignerol, ideally as
Governor of a military fortress. Instead, he was offered the command of the
Pignerol Citadel. However Saint-Mars had been at Pignerol for over fifteen
years and was reluctant to accept the promotion on offer and pleaded with
Louvois to be given an alternative appointment. A few weeks later Louvois
replied …his Majesty having learned of your extreme reluctance to accept
the Command of the citadel of Pignerol, he is willing to grant you the
Governorship of Exilles…
Saint-Mars’s transfer to Exilles however created a dilemma for Louis
XIV. What was to be done with Eustache Danger and La Rivière, now
secretly incarcerated in the Lower Tower? As far as everyone was aware,
these two valets had freely left Pignerol over a year earlier, but in fact were
secretly incarcerated in the Lower Tower to support the cover-story told to
Lauzun after Fouquet’s death? They could not now suddenly reappear. To
resolve this, Saint-Mars promotion came with a condition …the King will
have transported to Exilles those of his prisoners who are under your guard
that he believes are of sufficient consequence not to be left in anyone’s
hands but yours…I have asked Sire du Chaunoy to go with you to Exilles to
visit the buildings and prepare a memo of the repairs absolutely necessary
for lodging the two prisoners of the Lower Tower that his Majesty will
transfer to Exilles…Also send me a memo of all prisoners who are under
your charge and note at the side what you know of the reasons for which
they have been arrested. With regard to the two of the Lower Tower you
have only to note this name without any other mention…The King expects
that during the short period that you are absent from the citadel of
Pignerol…you will give orders for the guarding of your prisoners such that
nothing untoward may happen and that they will have no contact with
anyone other than those they have contact with since they were put under
your charge…

6
Chapter 24 - The wine maker

Chapter 24
The wine maker

Exilles was a remote mountain military fortress located in the southern

Alps, and like Pignerol a suitable place to secretly incarcerate the two
prisoners of the Lower Tower. However, nobody must learn that Saint-Mars
was taking these two secret prisoners with him. Monsieur Chaunoy the
surveyor who was instructed to report on the building works necessary at
Exilles to house the two prisoners, was instructed make no mention
whatsoever of them in his report. …The intention of his Majesty is that you
go to Exilles with Sire de Saint-Mars and examine the state of the
premises…You will send me a memo for the repair costs, observing that it
must concern solely the lodging of these two prisoners and that you must
not speak about them in any manner in your memo…
Louvois instructed Saint-Mars to secretly remove the two prisoners of
the Lower Tower from Pignerol concealed in a horse-drawn litter (a large
enclosed travelling box) …the intention of his majesty is that as soon as the
place at Exilles for securely guarding the two prisoners of the Lower Tower
is ready to receive them you will take them out of the Citadel of Pignerol in
a litter and have them escorted there by your company for which the
marching orders are attached. And as soon as possible after the departure
of the said prisoners the intention of his majesty is that you go to Exilles to
take possession of your governorship and to make it your future
residence…his Majesty expects that you will guard them with the same
exactness that you have done until now…
Saint-Mars informed Louvois of the precautions that he would take at
Exilles for securely guarding the two prisoners of the Lower Tower …In
order that nobody sees the prisoners, they will never leave their room to
hear mass and in order to hold them in the greatest security, one of my
lieutenants will sleep above them, and there will be two sentries, day and
night who will be on guard around the tower, without being able to see,
speak or even hear the prisoners. There will also be soldiers of my
Company located opposite the prisoner’s accommodation. #There is only
one confessor (at Exilles), which worries me a little. But if my Lord deems
it acceptable, I will give them the Curé of Exilles who is a man of property
and very old, to whom I could forbid, on his Majesty’s behalf from ever
learning who these prisoners are, their names or what they have been, nor
speaking of them ever, in any manner whatsoever, nor to receive any
communication from them, by word of mouth or in writing…
Saint-Mars planned to move to Exilles during August 1681, but in July
Louvois instructed him to delay his departure without arousing any
th
suspicion …I have received your letter of the 12 of this month by which I
see the repair works that you are having done at Exilles will not permit you
to leave before the end of the next month. As the service of his Majesty
might require that you stay at Pignerol all of the following month, it would
be useful that you are less diligent with these repair works in order that you
have a pretext for not departing from Pignerol until the first days of
October, observing to behave as though there does not appear to be any
other reason for staying on…
The reason for this subterfuge became clear when Catinat, who had
abducted Matthioli in 1679, arrived in Pignerol once again to secretly wait
there until he was ordered to take possession of the nearby town of Casal
which the Duke of Mantua had at long last agreed to cede to Louis XIV. On
his arrival at Pignerol in early September he informed Louvois …I arrived
here on the third of the month…I call myself Guibert …imprisoned by order
of the King. Guibert is from Nice. I arranged to have myself arrested
beyond Pignerol on the road from Pancarlier. To all appearance Monsieur
de Saint-Mars holds me a prisoner here, though with a profusion of figs of
an admirable plumpness and excellence…
 Catinat took possession of Casal at the end of September 1681 after
which Saint-Mars began his transfer to Exilles. Before leaving, he wrote to
d’Estrades in Turin …I have passed your letter to Monsieur
Catinat…leaves tomorrow, Sunday, with the infantry…As soon as I am able
leave here…I will come to assure you of my obedience…and then from
there I will go to my exile in Exilles in order to make some good wine
there for you in the French manner...The person who sent me the enclosed
insignia of Exilles will help you appreciate the innocence of this wretched
mountain-dweller…
In November 1681 Saint-Mars arrived at Exilles with Eustache Danger
and La Rivière, the two prisoners of the Lower Tower. Any lingering doubt
that the two prisoners at Exilles are none other than the two prisoners of the
Lower Tower and of their continuing significance to Louis XIV, is dispelled
by a letter dated March 1682 in which Louvois reconfirmed Saint-Mars’s
ongoing instructions for guarding the two prisoners …Since it is important
to prevent the prisoners at Exilles, who at Pignerol were called the
Prisoners of the Lower Tower, from having contact with anyone, the King
has ordered me to command you to have them guarded with such
strictness and care that you can answer to his Majesty for them being
unable to speak with anyone, not only from outside, but also the garrison
at Exilles…Please inform me from time to time what is happening to
them….
In response, Saint-Mars penned an extensive letter in which he provides
a detailed insight into the daily routine at Exilles and describes the high
degree of security under which the two prisoners of the Lower Tower were
guarded …I have received your letter…by which you inform, my Lord, how
important it is that my two prisoners have contact with nobody. From the
outset when, my Lord, you gave me this command I have guarded the two
prisoners in my charge as severely and strictly as formerly I guarded
Messrs Fouquet and Lauzun, who could not brag of having given or
received any news or information, as long as they were locked up…
…The prisoners can hear people speak who pass on the road which is at
the bottom of the tower where they are. But, if they wanted, they could not
make themselves heard. They can see people who are on the mountain in
front of their windows, but no one can see them because of the external iron
grilles. I have two sentries from my company night and day posted nearby
on two sides of the tower, overlooking the prisoner’s window. They are
ordered to see that nobody speaks to them and that they do not cry out from
their windows, and move on passers-by who stop on the road or on the
slope of the mountain. My room adjoins the tower and has no view other
than the side of the mountain, which means that I hear everything, even
what my two sentries say, who are always alert because of this…As for the
interior of the tower, I have had it separated in such a way that the Priest
who says the mass cannot see them because of a screen which I had made
that covers their double doors…
…The domestics who bring their food, put whatever is needed for the
prisoners on a table and from there my lieutenant takes it and carries it to
them, nobody speaks to them other than myself, my officer, Monsieur
Vigneron (the Priest) and a doctor who is from Pragelas, six leagues from
here, and all in my presence. For their laundry and other necessities, I take
the same precautions as I took for my prisoners in the past…
It is notable that at Exilles Saint-Mars continued to follow Louvois’s
original 1669 instructions for guarding Eustache Danger in Pignerol,
ensuring that…there were sufficient doors closing onto each other to
prevent the prison guards from hearing anything the prisoner might say…
Louvois replied that only Saint-Mars and a trusted lieutenant should speak
to the two prisoners.
Elsewhere in the prison correspondence for Exilles, the Prisoners of the
Lower Tower are merely referred to as the prisoners …The King approves
that you choose a Doctor to treat your prisoners and that you use Sire
Vignon to hear their confession once a year …As there is always one of my
two prisoners who is ill, they occupy me as much as ever I had for those
that I have guarded …You may have your prisoners dressed, but clothes
must last three or four years for people like these… This last order
incidentally proves that the two prisoners of the Lower Tower were not
high-status persons, like Fouquet and Matthioli.
Despite their isolated imprisonment the two prisoners of the Lower
Tower were not harshly treated and allowed to hear Mass regularly, to
receive religious books and make their confessions once a year. The two
prisoners were often ill in turn …As there is always one of my prisoners
who is ill they occupy me more than ever, than others I guarded before… A
prisoner was ill in April 1684, almost certainly La Rivière who is
mentioned by name …It has been a long time that you have not spoken
about your prisoners. Please advise me how you oversee them and how
well they are. Also advise me what you know about the origins of La Rivière
and the manner by which he was placed in the service of the late Monsieur
Fouquet…
As the Governor of a fortress-town, Saint-Mars enjoyed far greater
freedom than he was ever permitted when commander of the prison at
Pignerol …Nothing prevents you from going to Casal from time to time to
see Monsieur Catinat …His Majesty is not displeased that you sleep away
from Exilles for a night when you would like to travel around in the locality
…The King permits you to visit the Duc de Savoie after having ensured that
your prisoners will not have contact with anybody… However, despite this
increased freedom, within a few months of arriving at Exilles Saint-Mars
was bored. Exilles was a small, isolated border fortress and realising his
error, Saint-Mars tried to obtain another appointment elsewhere. Louvois
quickly dissuaded Saint-Mars from this notion …You do not know what is
good for you when you ask to change the governorship of Exilles in return
for the command of the fortress of Casal which is only worth 2,000 livres,
so I advise you, do not think about it...
In January 1685 Saint-Mars intriguingly requested permission to travel
to the French Court to deliver a message to Louvois regarding something
that his two prisoners had said to him, but this was refused. Instead saint-
Mars was told to put it in writing. The letter is lost, but Louvois responded
st
…By the letter you wrote on the 21 of this month I have noted what your
two prisoners have said to you which is of no consequence….
In June 1685, one of the two prisoners, fearing his impending demise,
wished to make a will. Later that year in December 1685 Saint-Mars
reported that both prisoners were ill. One of the prisoners had dropsy (fluid
build-up in the body). Louvois reproached Saint-Mars for the scarcity of
information he had provided about his prisoners…I have received the letter
th
that you wrote to me on the 26 of last month, which does not require any
reply other than to say that you ought to have named which of your two
prisoners has become dropsical…
Nearly a year later, in November 1686 the prisoner with dropsy was
barely alive and it was thought that he would soon die. Louvois wrote …It
is proper that your prisoner who has become dropsical receives his
confession when you perceive the signs of his approaching death. Until
then it is not necessary that he or his comrade have any outside
communication…
th
Two months later, on or just before the 5 January 1687, one of the two
prisoners at Exilles died. Saint-Mars informed the French Court by Express
th
Courier. Louvois responded …I have received your letter of the 5 of this
month by which I learn of the death of one of your prisoners… After this
briefest of acknowledgements, Louvois moved on to more earthly matters
of greater concern to Saint Mars …I say nothing about your desire to have
a change of Governorship as by now you will have learned that the King
has granted you a more considerable position than your present one, with
healthy air upon which I rejoice as I also do for the role that I have played
in this…
A separate letter informed Saint-Mars that he was to be promoted to
Governor of the islands of Sainte-Marguerite and Honorat, two islands
located in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Cannes. As with his
promotion to Exilles, Louis XIV required Saint-Mars to take the two
prisoners of the Lower Tower with him to his new appointment (at the time
of drafting the letter, the French Court was not aware of the death of one of
the prisoners) ...The King being pleased to award you the governorship of
the islands of Sainte-Marguerite…In order that you are prepared to
transport yourself to the said islands when you receive the order from his
Majesty, you will first make a tour of the said islands, to see what needs to
be done to securely accommodate in a proper place the prisoners who are
in your charge…You will then return to Exilles, to await the necessary
orders of his Majesty for escorting the prisoners there together with your
company. I believe that there is little point in recommending that you to
take such measures that during the time you are away at the Sainte-
Marguerite isles, the said prisoners are guarded so nothing untoward may
occur and that they have no contact with anybody…
A grateful Saint-Mars replied ...I am overwhelmed by this new favour
that I have received from his Majesty…I will give such good orders for the
guarding of my prisoner, that I can reply to you my Lord, for his entire
security. If I am to take the prisoner to the Saint Marguerite island, I think
that the safest transport would be a Sedan Chair, covered with canvas, such
that he would have enough air, without anybody being able to see him or
speak to him when travelling…not even my soldiers that I will choose to be
close by. This will be less inconvenient than a litter that can often break…
Louvois replied …I enclose your letters of appointment as Governor of
the Saint Marguerite Isles…As regards the manner of transferring the
prisoner, the King leaves it to you to use a covered chair in the manner that
you propose or any other means that you judge appropriate, providing that
you can justify it…

6
Chapter 12 - Providence in Provence
 Chapter 25
Providence in Provence

Saint-Mars arrived on Sainte Marguerite Island in February 1687 and

reported on the work necessary to securely house the surviving prisoner of
the Lower Tower. Louvois approved the planned work and proposed a date
for moving to the island …You will find enclosed orders of the King for
removing your company of men from Exilles, for which the departure date
is left to you, which I believe you should not defer much later than shortly
after Easter, not doubting that you would find the means to securely guard
your prisoner on Sainte-Marguerite isle whilst the prison where you would
will place him is being built, in such a manner that he may not have contact
with anybody and that nothing untoward may occur in the buildings which
are already there. I do not need to recommend to you to carefully guard the
prisoner on the road, since I am persuaded that you would not omit in
this....
Saint-Mars was unable to leave Exilles for Sainte-Marguerite Island at
the time proposed by Louvois. Just a week before Easter, Saint-Mars was
still on Saint Marguerite Island, recovering from a serious illness ...I
arrived here thirty days ago. I passed twenty-six of them in bed with a
continuous fever. I took so much powdered quinine that for the last three
days I have been without fever. I have sent to Toulon for a litter, in order to
leave here on the 26th of this month, and I hope to be at Exilles in eight
days …As soon as I receive your orders, my Lord, I will set out on the road
again with my prisoner who I promise to bring here in complete security,
without anybody seeing him or being able to speak to him. I will not have
him hear mass after departing from Exilles until he is lodged in the prison
under construction, which adjoin a Chapel …I can answer to you on my
honour for the total security of my prisoner...
On his return to Exilles, Saint-Mars hired a sedan chair in Turin along
th
with a team of Italian speaking porters and on the 17 April 1687 after
twenty-two years living in the isolated Alpine fortresses of Pignerol and
Exilles, Saint-Mars, along with his Free company of men and the surviving
prisoner of the Lower Tower, travelled to Sainte Marguerite Island. During
the transfer, Saint-Mars’s prisoner aroused great curiosity especially when
passing through the towns of Briançon and Grasse. On arriving at Sainte
Marguerite Island, Saint-Mars wrote ...I arrived here on 30th of last month
having spent twelve days on the road because my prisoner was ill, he
claimed it was due to not having enough air to breathe. I can assure you,
my lord that no one in the world saw him and by the manner in which I
guarded and conducted him throughout the journey, this left everyone
guessing as to who my prisoner could be…The bed of my prisoner was so
old and dilapidated, as was everything he had, table-linen, furniture, it was
not worth the trouble of bringing it here, and I received only thirteen Ecus
for the lot. I had eight porters from Turin carry my prisoner in a (sedan)
chair, for which I paid two hundred and three livres, including the said
chair...
The precautions Saint-Mars took to conceal the identity of his prisoner
certainly aroused the curiosity of people in each town they stopped at
during the twelve-day journey. A newsletter reported that Saint-Mars’s
prisoner wore a steel mask! …Monsieur de Saint-Mars has by order of the
King transported a state prisoner from Pignerol to the island of Sainte-
Marguerite. No one knows who he is, it is forbidden to say his name and
orders are to kill him if he pronounced it. Others have been sent to
Pignerol and this one is without doubt of that sort. A man committed
suicide there (at Pignerol). The prisoner was enclosed in a sedan type
chair and had a steel mask on his face, and all that one could learn from
Saint-Mars is that this prisoner had been many years at Pignerol and that
all people who are believed dead are not...
Undoubtedly the transfer of the surviving prisoner of the Lower Tower
from Exilles to Sainte Marguerite, gave birth to the legend of the Man in
the Iron Mask. Although a moot point, the prisoner really ought to have
been called the Man in the Steel Mask, but when legends are born, a few
percent variation in the carbon content of the iron mask, is of little
significance!
The newsletter, mentions that Saint-Mars’s prisoner came from Pignerol
and not Exilles. When Eustache Danger and La Rivière, the two prisoners
of the Lower Tower were secretly incarcerated in Pignerol after Fouquet’s
death, Saint-Mars was instructed to inform Lauzun and anyone else who
enquired, that the two valets had freely left Pignerol following Fouquet’s
death. When Saint-Mars left Pignerol for Exilles during the following year,
the two now secret prisoners were concealed in a litter so that nobody
would know that Saint-Mars had taken two prisoners with him to Exilles.
Thus, as far as the public were concerned Saint-Mars had no prisoners at
Exilles, hence the subterfuge that the surviving prisoner had been collected
from nearby Pignerol when Saint-Mars left the Alps for Sainte Marguerite.
There is a contemporary account, describing Saint-Mars’s arrival on
Sainte Marguerite with his mysterious prisoner. Abbot Mauvans was
touring the Mediterranean by boat and stopped off to visit Saint Marguerite
…In the afternoon the wind was unfavourable which made us decide to put
in at the islands which we had intended to visit on the return voyage. We
landed at Sainte Marguerite at five o’ clock and Monsieur de Mazauges
and I climbed to the fortress to obtain permission to enter the Tower of
Saint-Honorat which we obtained from the captain and then made a tour of
the island…New fortifications will be constructed there, we saw the
preparations. Work will begin as soon as Monsieur de Saint-Mars arrives.
He left some time ago to collect that unknown prisoner who is being
transported with such great precautions, and who has been made to
understand that when he is sick of living, he has only to shout out his
name, because the order is to put a pistol-ball in his head when he does…
…We were told that the lodgings which are to be built for this prisoner
would be connected to the governor’s house, so that only the governor
would see him and serve his meals and be almost his only gaoler and
guard…
…I have just this moment learned from the military commissioner,
himself newly arrived on the islands that the state prisoner arrived there
three days ago...Before I close my letter, I would give you particulars of
the journey of this prisoner and the disguise under which he was seen in
Grasse, but it is time to re-join the company and continue our journey… It
is frustrating that Abbé Mauvans could not have found just a few moments
more to complete his account of the Man in the Iron Mask passing through
Grasse!
On Sainte Marguerite Island, Saint Mars had to remove a prisoner
already detained there to provide temporary accommodation for the
surviving prisoner of the Lower Tower, now known as the man in the iron
mask. Louvois wrote …I see no objection to your removing Chevalier de
Thezut from the prison in which he is confined, and putting your prisoner
there until the one you are preparing is ready to receive him...
Finally, in January 1688 Saint-Mars announced with great pride, the
completion of the new prison. Like an over-zealous Estate Agent, he made
a blatant sales pitch to Louvois, boasting that the new prison would be
perfect for future high-status prisoners of the likes of Fouquet and Lauzun
...My prisoner, who is in poor health as usual, has been put into one of the
two new prisons which you instructed me to have built. They are large,
handsome, and well-lit, and as for their excellence as prisons I do not think
there could be any safer and sounder in Europe, particularly with regard to
the risk of prisoners communicating with someone whether from within or
at distance, which could never be said for any of the places where I had
charge of Monsieur Fouquet after his arrest.
With relatively few precautions one can even have prisoners take a walk
about the island without fear that they might escape or pass messages. I
take the liberty, my Lord to inform you in detail of the excellence of this
place in the eventuality that you may have prisoners that you wish to keep
in complete security but with a reasonable degree of freedom...
Saint-Mars finished his letter saying …Throughout this province, some
say that my prisoner is Monsieur de Beaufort and others say that he is the
son of the late Cromwell...
In July 1691, four years after Saint Mars’s transfer to Sainte Marguerite
Louvois died and his son Barbezieux was appointed in his place. The
following month, he instructed Saint-Mars to continue taking the same
precautions about the long-time prisoner as he had done when writing to his
father … When you have something to tell me about the prisoner who has
been under your guard for twenty years, please take the same precautions
that you did when you wrote to Monsieur de Louvois... There can be no
doubt that Barbezieux was referring to the surviving prisoner of the Lower
Tower who Saint-Mars took from Pignerol to Exilles, then from there to
Saint Marguerite, and not to any of the new prisoners that Saint-Mars had
received to guard after his arrival on the Island (four Protestant Ministers).
It remains to be established who was the surviving prisoner of the
Lower Tower, was it Eustache Danger or La Rivière? Barbezieux’s mention
of the prisoner being twenty years under Saint-Mars custody helps resolves
this.
The only prisoner who arrived twenty years earlier (in 1671) was
Lauzun and he was released in 1681, so the twenty years can only be an
approximate round number (after all, Barbezieux was new to his post) and
can only be a reference to Eustache Danger who came to Pignerol in 1669.
La Rivière was at the prison at least four years earlier. The other four
prisoners (the Monk, Dubreuil, Matthioli and his valet) all arrived several
years later.
Whilst this evidence alone identifies that the surviving prisoner of the
Lower Tower was Eustache Danger,however, an event occurred in 1694,
which would create a red herring that allowed some historians to claim that
the prisoner on Sainte Marguerite was Matthioli!
During the latter part of 1693 Pignerol was under siege by the Duke of
Savoie and it was decided to move the remaining prisoners at Pignerol to
Sainte Marguerite Island. Of the four prisoners that Saint-Mars left behind
at Pignerol, Dubreuil, had been released, leaving just three, the deranged
Monk, Matthioli and his valet, plus two other prisoners Herse and Breton
who arrived there after Saint-Mars was transferred to Exiles. Shortly before
the transfer of these prisoners to Sainte-Marguerite, the eldest of the three
original prisoners died and nobody knew his identity. Barbezieux wrote to
Saint-Mars …Sire de la Prade, to whom the King has entrusted the
guarding of the prisoners who are detained by order of his Majesty in the
prison of Pignerol, writes to me that the eldest is dead and that they do not
know his name. As I have no doubt that you will remember him, please
inform me in code... Saint-Mars’s reply is lost. However, it is known that
the four prisoners transferred to Sainte Marguerite Island in 1694 were
Herse, Breton and an unidentified prisoner and his valet. These last two can
only be Matthioli and his valet. By elimination it was the deranged Monk
who died at Pignerol in late 1693.
The number of prisoners to be transferred from Pignerol to Sainte
th
Marguerite was now only four and on the 7 April 1694, an officer named
Maisonel wrote to Barbezieux ...I am leaving this moment to securely
escort four state prisoners who are at the citadel of Pignerol, I will take
them as far as Briançon and hand them over to the escort of Sire de la
Prade, Major of the said citadel…
Barbezieux wrote to Saint-Mars instructing him to assist with the
prisoner transfer. In this letter there is a phrase which has been relied on by
some historians to claim that Matthioli was the Man in the Iron Mask
…Please send promptly to Pignerol two sergeants of your company about
whom you have spoken to assist Sire la Prade transfer to the Islands the
state prisoners who are in the dungeon… You know that they are of more
consequence at least one/with the exception of one of those presently on
the isles. You must preferably put them in the most secure cells...
The French expression in this letter “au moins un” normally translates
as “at least one” but can also mean “with the exception of one”, especially
if written “á moins un” Whilst this may appear to be a moot point of
French grammar, this has been used to claim that Matthioli was of greater
significance than the surviving Prisoner of the Lower Tower already on the
Island and that Matthioli on arriving at Saint Marguerite somehow usurped
this prisoner. However, during the transfer of the four prisoners from
th
Pignerol, one of them died and on the 10 May 1694 Barbezieux instructed
Saint-Mars to place the valet of the prisoner who had died, in the second of
the two prison cells that Saint-Mars had built ...You may, following what
you propose, have the valet of the prisoner who has died, placed in the
vaulted prison, observing to have him guarded as well as the others,
without any communication in person or in writing with whoever it may
be... The only prisoner who had a valet was Matthioli and so it could only
be Matthioli who died.
The following year, 1695, Saint-Mars, now sixty-nine years of age, was
experiencing periods of illness which sometimes prevented him from
exercising his duties. As a precaution Barbezieux asked Saint-Mars ...it
sometimes happens through illness, or otherwise, that you have not been
able to visit the prisoners who have been committed to your guard, please
inform me who has been charged of this duty in your place and how they
(the prisoners) are treated in these periods, in order that the King may give
his orders correctly when this situation reoccurs...
In his reply Saint-Mars reveals the wealth of experience acquired over
several decades of guarding prisoners and discovering the various ruses that
they used to secretly communicate and smuggle messages in and out of the
prison. The surviving prisoner of the Lower Tower is now often referred to
as the long-time prisoner, an alias Barbezieux used when he replaced
Louvois …You ask me to inform you what arrangements are made when I
am absent or sick, and unable to do the day-to-day visits and the
precautions taken regarding the prisoners of consequence who are in my
charge. My two lieutenants deliver the meals at set times in the way they
have seen me give them and as I still very often do when I am feeling well.
This is how it is performed...The senior lieutenant takes the keys for the
prison of my long-time prisoner with whom we begin. He opens the three
doors and enters the cell of the prisoner who duly hands him dishes and
plates which he himself has piled together. The lieutenant has only to go out
of two doors to give them to one of my sergeants who puts them on a table
two steps away, where the other lieutenant inspects everything going in or
out of the prison and sees that there is nothing written on the dishes. Once
he has been given all that is necessary, an inspection is made inside and
under the bed, from there to the bars of the window and to the privy. A
complete search of the room is made and very often a body-search as well.
Then when he has been asked in a civil fashion if he needs anything else the
doors are closed and the same thing is repeated with the other prisoners…
Table-linen is changed twice a week, along with their shirts and the other
linen they use, it all being counted and carefully inspected both when it is
collected and when it is returned.
One can be badly caught out with the prisoners’ laundry, some have
even attempted to bribe the washerwomen. They, however, swore to me that
they were unable to do what was asked of them because I have the linen
soaked as soon as it comes out of the cells and when it is clean and half-dry
the washerwomen come to my apartment to iron and fold it in the presence
of one of my lieutenants, who lock the laundry baskets in a strong-room
until they were handed to the prisoners' valets…
…One must be on guard about the candles too. I have encountered
some which, when broken or employed, were found to have paper in them
in place of a wick. I used to send for them from Turin, in shops which were
not suspect. Ribbons leaving the prisoners' cells are also dangerous,
because they might write on them as they do on their linen, without one
knowing...
…The late Monsieur Fouquet used to make fine paper and I would let
him write on it, then I would go at night and take it from a little pocket
which he had sewn into the seat of his breeches and I would send it to your
late father…(Here the letter is damaged and unreadable)…As a final
precaution, the prisoners receive surprise visits from time to time at
irregular hours of the day and night and I frequently discovered then that
they have been writing messages on their dirty laundry. No one else
however could possibly read what they write, as you know from the samples
that I have sent you...
There are many revealing remarks in this letter, not least Saint-Mars’s
reference to the daily unlocking of three doors to access the long-time
prisoner’s cell. On Sainte Marguerite isle, Saint-Mars had this constructed
as he did at Exilles and at Pignerol, as per Louvois’s original 1669
instruction for Eustache Danger’s special secure cell at Pignerol …with
sufficient doors closing onto each other, so that the prison guards may
not hear anything that the prisoner might say…
Saint-Mars also refers in this letter to the late Monsieur Fouquet which
provides further evidence that Fouquet had indeed died and not as claimed
by some writers, survived and secretly taken to Exilles. Other writers have
also claimed that the importance of the long-time prisoner had waned over
the years, however there is evidence including this letter that even after
twenty-eight years of prison, the long-time prisoner was still a prisoner of
consequence.
The continuing significance of the Long-Time Prisoner is further
demonstrated a year later in 1697. The peace treaty of Ryswick provided
for the release of all prisoners of war. In November Monsieur de
Pontchartrain, one of Louis XIV’s Ministers of State, required the names
and reasons for imprisonment of every prisoner throughout France. Saint-
Mars passed Pontchartrain’s enquiry to Barbezieux who replied …I
received the copy of the letter that Monsieur de Pontchartrain wrote to you
concerning the prisoners who are on the island of Sainte-Marguerite, under
orders of the King, signed by him or the late Monsieur de Seignelay. You
have no other conduct to follow with regard to those who are confided in
your charge than to continue to watch over them securely without
explaining to anybody at all about what your long-time prisoner did…
There is also a letter cited in the Souvenirs of Madame Crequy which
has been overlooked by historians. The letter is from Barbezieux to Saint-
th
Mars and dated the 19 December 1697, just a month after the preceding
letter …Without relaxing your guard of the long-time prisoner and without
explaining to whoever it may be about what he is guilty, you may permit
him with as much as you might which is consistent with the King’s
service…
Whilst doubts have been raised about the authenticity of Madame
Crequy’s memoirs, they were posthumously collated by her son from his
mother’ papers and internal evidence in the letter points to its genuineness.
th
The date of the letter (19 December 1697) announcing significant
improvements to the prisoner’s conditions of imprisonment is consistent
with Louis XIV’s habit of Christmastide munificence. The prisoner’s latest
alias is mentioned …the long-time prisoner… and, equally important, the
letter repeats the same instruction contained in Barbezieux’s letter dated
just the previous month (i.e. not to reveal details about the long-time
prisoner’s past to anybody). If this letter is genuine and based on the
internal evidence there is no reason to doubt this, then as part of his usual
Christmastide munificence, after twenty-eight years of imprisonment,
Louis XIV improved as best he could, the conditions of the surviving
prisoner of the Lower Tower, whilst still keeping him incommunicado from
the world.
That same year, a death in Paris occurred which would bring about the
th
end of Saint-Mars’s Governorship of Sainte Marguerite Island. On the 18
December 1697, Besmaux, the Governor of the Bastille in Paris died and
Saint-Mars was offered this prestigious post!

6
Chapter 13 - Bastille
 Chapter 26
Bastille

The Bastille of Paris,

Such a special favour from the King,
To be condemned to such a fine prison

Following the death of the Besmaux, the Governor of the Bastille,

Barbezieux wrote to Saint-Mars ...my condolences on the death of your
brother in law for whom you will have no doubt that through his service
and the friendship I had for him, I am most saddened. I also write
regarding the proposal of you exchanging your governorship of Sainte
Marguerite for that of the Bastille…The revenue of the Bastille
governorship consists of 15,168 livres on the King’s estates plus 2,000
livres that Monsieur Besmaux made from the shops around the Bastille and
the boat tolls that are due to the Governor. Monsieur Besmaux was obliged
to pay for a number of sergeants and soldiers for guarding the prisoners
under his control, but you know what you draw for your company and the
expenses involved…
It is for you to know where your interests lay, the King does not force
you to accept it if it does not suit you and at the same time, I do not doubt
that you will take into account the profit that is ordinarily made on what the
King gives for the upkeep of the prisoners, which must be considerable.
There is also the pleasure of being in Paris with one’s family and friends
instead of being confined to the other end of the Kingdom. If I may give you
my opinion this is a great advantage and I believe that you would not lose
out by this exchange for the reasons given. Please advise me of your
thoughts on this...
Saint-Mars had been governor of Sainte Marguerite Island for eleven
years and after weighing up the relative merits, he accepted the
appointment. Barbezieux confirmed that Saint-Mars would bring his long-
time prisoner with him to the Bastille …It has been some time replying to
your letter… the King had not yet told me his intentions. I can now inform
you that his Majesty is pleased that you have decided to come to the
Bastille to be its Governor. You may make all arrangements in order to be
ready to leave when I inform you and bring with you under total security
your long-time prisoner...…taking precautions to prevent that he be seen
or known to anybody…You may write in advance to his Majesty’s
Lieutenant of the Bastille to have a room ready to accommodate this
prisoner on your arrival...
Saint-Mars began his preparations to leave Saint Marguerite and
submitted proposals for ensuring the security of his long-time prisoner
during the transfer. Barbezieux replied …I have reported to the King on the
precautions that you will take for the escort of your prisoner, who approves
them. However, his Majesty does not judge it necessary to implement the
order that you request to have lodgings prepared on your route to Paris,
and it will be adequate that you lodge yourself, paying for the most
convenient and secure in the places that you judge appropriate to stay…
th
On the 18 September 1698, Saint-Mars arrived at the Bastille. Du
Junca, the King’s Lieutenant of the Bastille, recorded the event in his diary
...On Thursday 18 September at 3 o’ clock in the afternoon Monsieur de
Saint-Mars, Governor of the Chateau de la Bastille, arrived for his first
entrance coming from his governorship of the Sainte Marguerite and
Honnorat Isles, having brought with him in his litter a long-time prisoner
that he had at Pignerol whom he always keeps masked, the name of which
is never mentioned and having placed him after descending from his litter
in the first chamber of the Basinière Tower, whilst awaiting darkness, in
order for myself and Monsieur de Rosarges, one of the Sergeants that
Monsieur the Governor brought, to take and place him at nine o’clock in
the evening, alone in the third chamber of the Bertaudière Tower, which I
had furnished of all things some days before his arrival, having received
the order from Monsieur de Saint-Mars. The said prisoner will be served
and looked after by Monsieur de Rosarges, and paid for by Monsieur the
Governor...
The Bastille prison consisted of eight towers with connecting battlement
walls, laid out in a near rectangle. All the towers plus part of a building
which divided the courtyard into two were used to house prisoners.
According to contemporary plans and sections, each tower had one room
per floor, with a spiral staircase providing access to each room and on to
the battlements above.
The ground floor cell of each Tower was located a few feet above the
courtyard level. In six of the towers including the Bertaudière tower where
the masked long-time prisoner was placed, there were five floors including
the ground floor. The uppermost cell being located within the attic roof
space (the Calotte) which had a stone-vaulted ceiling to support the roof
and battlements above. In most towers there was also a dungeon, located
below the courtyard level. These basement dungeons were generally used
to hold prisoners who Louis XIV had instructed to be treated harshly or to
punish prisoners who misbehaved.
There are various reasons why the Bertaudière Tower was likely chosen
to initially hold the Masked Prisoner. The small windows overlooked a
secluded grassed area and the moat that was generally inaccessible. The
thick walls of the Tower also made it difficult to look down onto the area
below especially if metal grilles were fixed across the openings along the
internal face of the wall. The Bertaudière Tower was also located adjacent
to the Chapel which facilitated escorting the long-time prisoner to Sunday
Mass.
After the Masked Prisoner’s arrival at the Bastille there are few
references to him in the prison records. In November 1698, less than two
months after his arrival, Pontchartrain, one of the King’s Ministers,
informed Saint-Mars …The King permits that your prisoner from
Provence take his communion and make his confession whenever you judge
appropriate…
In April 1701 a little over a year and a half after the Masked Prisoner
arrived at the Bastille, there is a curious entry in du Junca’s diary
...Monsieur Aumont came bringing with him a prisoner named Maranville
who I placed with Tirmont in the Second prison of the Bertaudière Tower
with the long-time prisoner both well locked up... Some writers have
claimed that this diary entry proves that in 1701 the long-time prisoner was
now sharing a cell with other prisoners and thus he was no longer
considered to be a prisoner of consequence.
However, a closer examination of the original entry in du Junca’s diary
reveals that the wording is imprecise and confusing. The first part of the
text refers to Maranville being placed in the second cell with Tirmont
(…who I had placed in the company of Tirmont in the Second prison of the
Bertaudière Tower…) then there is a floating middle statement (…with the
long-time prisoner…) which is made without any punctuation to give
context or indicate whether this qualified the preceding text or the
subsequent text which confusingly mentions that only two (not three)
prisoners were securely locked-up together (…both well locked up…).
Du Junca did not state that the long-time prisoner was in the same cell
as these other two prisoners. Du Junca’s diary also reveals that on arrival at
the Bastille, Tirmont was placed alone in the second cell of the Bertaudière
Tower, thus the Masked Prisoner was clearly not in the second cell at that
time. Du Junca can only have recorded that Maranville was placed in the
second cell with Tirmont and that both were well secured, in the same
tower as the Long-time prisoner (who can only have been in another cell).
This interpretation of the diary is yet all the more likely when it is
considered that placing the Masked Prisoner with another person would
have been quite contrary to the unvarying orders which Saint-Mars had
received over the past thirty-two years and which were re-confirmed on
several occasions, the last one being as recent as September 1698, when
Saint-Mars transferred his prisoner from Sainte Marguerite Island to the
Bastille ...taking precautions to prevent that he (your long-time prisoner)
being seen or known to anybody...
These orders were strictly followed. On arrival at the Bastille the long-
time prisoner was masked and placed in a temporary holding cell on the
ground floor and only later, under the cover of darkness, was he moved
unobserved. Du Junca also recorded that the long-time prisoner still wore
the velvet mask when he collapsed and later died in 1703. It is thus
nonsensical to misinterpret du Junca’s diary to prove that the Masked
Prisoner was ever placed in the company of other prisoners.
A detailed analysis of du Junca’s diary, together with Funck Brentano’s
Register of Prisoners of the Bastille and Reneville’s French Inquisition, is
most revealing. When du Junca took up his post as King’s Lieutenant at the
th
Bastille on the 11 October 1690 (eight years before the arrival of the
Masked Prisoner), he recorded that there were 64 prisoners and 9 valets, 73
in total. Of these, at least 66 were subsequently released, transferred to
other gaols or died prior to the arrival of the Masked Prisoner in September
1698, leaving just 7 prisoners/valets from this original group. In addition,
from the time of du Junca’s appointment, up to the arrival of the Masked
Prisoner, there were only an additional 12 more prisoners who had not been
released prior to the arrival of the Masked Prisoner. Thus, there were just
19 prisoners at the Bastille when the Masked Prisoner arrived there in
September 1698.
Of these original 19 prisoners and valets at the Bastille in 1698, it is not
known how many were in the Bertaudière Tower, but given such relatively
low prisoner numbers, it is feasible that Saint-Mars’s instructed du Junca to
prepare a cell in an unoccupied Tower to receive the Masked Prisoner.
More importantly, du Junca’s diary identifies the name of each prisoner,
their arrival date, the name of the tower, the cell-floor number and whether
the prisoner was placed alone or not in a cell. Du Junca’s mention of
whether a new prisoner was placed alone in a cell usefully confirms that the
previous occupants of a cell must have been moved elsewhere or released
on or before that date. The data from du Junca’s diary is collated below.
 The following important points can be deduced from this data:
• From the arrival of the Masked Prisoner in September 1698, apart
from one single exception no new prisoners were placed in the
st
Bertaudière Tower until some fourteen months later, i.e. on the 21
November 1699, after which the Bertaudière Tower was regularly used
to lodge new prisoners. The only exception was Mark Lynch, an
Irishman who was placed in the second cell of the Bertaudière Tower on
the 26/06/1699, however it is known that Lynch was moved elsewhere
before the 30/07/1700.
• The Masked Prisoner was moved out of the 3rd cell of the
st
Bertaudière Tower on or before the 21 November 1699 (when Faliseau
was placed there) and The Masked Prisoner never returned to that cell
because from this date onward the cell was occupied by new prisoners
who were either placed there alone, or with other named prisoners.
• Given the large number of prisoners recorded to have been placed
st
alone in cells 1, 2 and 5 of the Bertaudière Tower after the 21
November 1699, the Masked Prisoner could not possibly have stayed in
any of these cells, otherwise this would have required him to constantly
switch cells, which is most improbable for a secret long-time, prisoner
of consequence.
• Most significant of all, during the five years and two months that
the Masked Prisoner was at the Bastille, du Junca’s diary reveals that
th
the 4 cell of the Bertaudière Tower never received any prisoners
whatsoever!!

th
Based on the above analysis, there is a high probability that the 4 cell
of the Bertaudière Tower became the Masked Prisoner’s permanent prison
after the completion of any necessary building works. The prisoner’s
rd
confinement in the 3 cell was merely a temporary measure until the works
were completed to create (in accordance with Louvois’s original
instructions ... prepare a cell where you will securely place him, observing
that…there be enough closed communicating doors so that your guards
may not hear anything… The prison correspondence shows that Saint-Mars
diligently followed these orders in all his prisons, at Pignerol, Exilles and
Sainte Marguerite and there is no reason to doubt that he followed these
same unchanged orders at the Bastille.
At the Bastille, whilst the additional doors could have been added along
th
the short corridor connecting the spiral staircase to the entrance of the 4
cell, there is another tempting possibility. Located adjacent to the
Bertaudière Tower, was an apartment above the adjoining Prison Chapel,
and according to the sectional plans of the Bastille, the floor of this two-
th
storey apartment was located about the same level as the 4 cell of the
Bertaudière Tower. Du Junca’s diary reveals that this Chapel apartment was
last used to house a prisoner in October 1693. It is quite feasible that Saint-
Mars housed the Masked Prisoner in this Chapel apartment as it provided a
higher degree isolation and security. There were no cells above or below it
to allow the Masked Prisoner to communicate with anyone else. It is also
known that Saint-Mars had some alteration works carried soon after his
arrival at the Bastille and it is suggested (without any specific proof) that
these works involved removing and sealing off the stairway access to the
Chapel apartment from the Chapel below and creating an opening between
th
the Chapel apartment and the fourth cell of the Bertaudière Tower. The 4
cell of the Tower could then serve as an ante-room (exactly as Saint-Mars
had created in Exilles and on Sainte Marguerite Island) where the Masked
Prisoner’s linen, utensils and other effects could be carefully inspected
before removal. This arrangement would also have allowed the prison
guards and fortress soldiers to freely use the spiral stairway to access the
other cells in the tower and the battlements above, without hearing or being
th
able to communicate with the Masked Prisoner. Furthermore, the 4 cell
being near to the top of the spiral stairway, this would have permitted the
Masked Prisoner to walk along the battlements and take the air, (if he was
still permitted to do so to maintain his health and sanity).
The Masked Prisoner survived for five years and two months at the
th
Bastille, dying there on the 19 November 1703. His death is recorded in
du Junca’s diary. Unfortunately the entry provides scant additional
information other than confirming that the Masked Prisoner did not wear an
iron mask at the Bastille, it was made of black velvet ...On this day…the
unknown prisoner always shrouded, in a mask of black velvet that
Monsieur de Saint-Mars, Governor, had brought with him, when coming
from the Saint Marguerite Isles, who he had guarded for a long time, who
yesterday feeling a little ill while leaving mass, died on this day about 10 o’
clock in the evening, without having had a great illness, he could not
continue any further. Monsieur Giraud our chaplain, comforted him for a
time before he died. Due to his sudden death, he did not receive the
sacraments and this unknown prisoner, guarded for so long was interred
th
Tuesday at 4 o’ clock in the afternoon of 20 November in the cemetery of
Saint-Paul, of our parish. On the death register one has given him a name
equally unknown by Monsieur de Rosarges, Major and Monsieur Reilhe,
Surgeon who signed the register... Nb. These two witnesses were members
of Saint-Mars’s prison staff.
As Du Junca’s diary states that the Masked Prisoner was always
shrouded, in a mask of black velvet… from which it can be deduced that the
prisoner wore the velvet mask during his transfer from Sainte Marguerite
Island to the Bastille. Fortunately, the heavy “steel mask” which the
prisoner was seen wearing in Grasse during his transfer from Exilles to
Sainte Marguerite was only seen on that occasion and one can only hope
that the heavy mask was discarded soon after the prisoner arrived at Sainte
Marguerite to be replaced by the more comfortable and bearable mask of
velvet which was only worn when the Prisoner left his cell to go to Mass.
Given the wide-ranging evidence now available, one might think that it
would be a relatively simple task to reveal the true identity of the Man in
the Iron mask. First, identify the “two Prisoners of the Lower Tower” who
Saint-Mars took to Exilles in 1681. Then identify which of these two
prisoners survived at Exilles and was seen wearing a steel mask near
Grasse when being transferred to Saint Marguerite Isle. Finally prove that
Saint-Mars took this same long-time prisoner to the Bastille in 1698 where
he was seen wearing a Mask of Black Velvet.
Unfortunately, unmasking the man in the Iron Mask is not so simple and
the piecemeal uncovering of evidence over the centuries has resulted in
several erroneous “unmaskings”. It is now not only necessary to provide
the correct solution to this centuries-old enigma, but also disprove several
incorrect solutions.

6
Chapter 27 - Unmasking

Chapter 27
Unmasking
 A general pardon everywhere is proclaimed,
The tombs of the living open effortlessly,
But fever burns me night and day in such terrible horror,
from this dungeon deliver me.

Frustratingly, amongst the abundance of contemporary archive material

now in the public domain there is still no single document that
unequivocally identifies which of Saint-Mars’s prisoners became the Man
in the Steel Mask and the Man in the Velvet Mask. Nb. Some historians
(the Matthiolists) argue that the Prisoner in the Steel Mask (seen in Grasse)
is not the same person as the Prisoner in the Velvet Mask (seen at the
Bastille).
In the absence of the “smoking gun” evidence, one is obliged to
combine elements of incontrovertible evidence with other of evidence
derived by elimination or adduction and substantiated with an
overwhelming body of corroborative evidence.
It has been clearly demonstrated that following Lauzun’s release from
Pignerol in 1681, Saint-Mars took the two prisoners of the Lower Tower
with him to Exilles. There were six prisoners imprisoned in the Lower
Tower and whilst any two of these prisoners might theoretically have been
these two prisoners of the Lower Tower, the earlier chapters provide
incontrovertible evidence that these two prisoners were Eustache Danger
and La Rivière. Some historians have nevertheless claimed that Matthioli
was one of these two prisoners. This claim was originally founded on a
paragraph in Louvois’s letter informing Saint-Mars that he would be
appointed to the Governorship of Exilles in which Saint-Mars was
instructed to take Matthioli’s possessions to Exilles …As regards the
possessions of Sire Matthioli you have only to take them to Exilles to be
able to return them if ever his Majesty orders that he be released… This
instruction is not inconsistent with Matthioli remaining at Pignerol given
that Saint-Mars remained in Command of Pignerol prison pending his
formal replacement. Villebois, one of Saint-Mars’s Lieutenants, who
remained at Pignerol to guard the other four prisoners, was only a
temporary solution until the King’s Lieutenant returned or a new
appointment was made.
Whilst Matthioli might theoretically have been one of the two prisoners
of the Lower Tower (he was after all imprisoned in the Lower Tower along
with the deranged Monk), this has long since been disproved through other
incontrovertible evidence, In June 1681 shortly before leaving for Exilles,
Saint-Mars wrote to Abbé Estrades, the Ambassador at Turin who had
orchestrated Matthioli’s abduction …I received yesterday my appointment
as Governor of Exilles with two thousand livres per year salary. I keep my
Free Company and two of my lieutenants, and I will have under my guard
two “blackbirds” (gaolbirds) that I have here, who have no other name
than the messieurs of the lower tower. Matthioli will stay here with two
other prisoners. One of my Lieutenants, Villebois, will guard them and he
has a warrant to command the citadel and the prison in my absence, until
de Rissan returns, or his Majesty has granted the lieutenancy to another
person…I do not think I will depart from here until the end of the coming
month. I might go there (to Exilles) from time to time carry out some
repairs for the good of the service…I have orders to go to Exilles when I
judge it appropriate, but as nothing presses me, except my need to establish
myself in that place in order to pass the winter there with all my family and
the bears, so some time will be necessary to accommodate myself there as
best that I might...I have asked permission to go to Turin, but the occasions
that I have tried to obtain this privilege, even when the Marquis of Louvois
came here, I could not obtain this pleasant leave, which would be very dear
to me to thank you in person, Monsieur, for all the kindnesses and favours
that I have received by your generosity...
There is even further evidence proving that Matthioli was not one of the
two prisoners of the Lower Tower who went to Exilles. In August 1681,
shortly after Louis XIV instructed Saint-Mars to take the two prisoners of
the Lower Tower with him to Exilles, Louis XIV wrote to his ambassador
…I have previously informed you that you may assure the Duke of Mantua
that Matthioli will only leave the place where he is with the consent of this
Prince (the Duke of Mantua) and if there are other measures that need to
be satisfied please inform me… Louis XIV would not have made such a
promise if he had just ordered the transfer of Matthioli from Pignerol to
Exilles.
There is even evidence proving Matthioli was still at Pignerol twelve
years after Saint-Mars had left to go to Exilles with the two prisoners of the
Lower Tower. In December 1693, the commander of Pignerol prison was
instructed …You need only to burn the remains of the pocket on which
Matthioli and his man (valet) have written, which you found in the lining of
their waistcoat where they had hidden it…
Other historians have claimed that the long-time prisoner on Sainte
Marguerite Island was a high-status person and not a lowly valet, because,
allegedly he was held in a state of splendour and so could only be
Matthioli, not Eustache Danger. However, the prison correspondence
proves that the two prisoners of the Lower Tower at Exilles and the sole
survivor who later went to Sainte Marguerite Island were not high-status.
Saint-Mars wrote when leaving Exilles …The bed of my prisoner was so
old and dilapidated, as was everything that he had, table-linen, furniture, it
was not worth the trouble of bringing it here, and I received only thirteen
Ecus for the lot…
Furthermore, in 2015 the French National Archives published a newly
uncovered notarial inventory of Saint-Mars’s possessions on Sainte
Marguerite Island. This document confirms that the furniture in the long-
time prisoner’s cell was of basic quality, consistent with a prisoner of lowly
rank. The same inventory even confirms that the wealth Saint-Mars accrued
on Sainte Marguerite Island was not excessive for his rank and position,
further disproving other unfounded claims that the long-time prisoner on
Sainte Marguerite Island was a high-status prisoner, on the back of which
Saint-Mars allegedly enriched himself at the expense of Louis XIV.
To cap the various rebuttal evidence against the candidature of
Matthioli, there is also evidence (already presented) that proves Matthioli
died in 1694, but above all, it has been proved in the earlier chapters, that
the Masked Prisoner could only be Eustache Danger or La Rivière, the two
prisoners of the Lower Tower, who were given this cover-name when they
were secretly incarcerated in Pignerol when Saint-Mars announced the
cover-story to Lauzun that they had been freed after Fouquet’s death.
It remains necessary to identify which of the two prisoners of the Lower
Tower survived at Exilles and was later transferred to Sainte Marguerite
and from there to the Bastille. Was it Eustache Danger or La Rivière?
Unfortunately, the prison correspondence does not specifically name which
prisoner died at Exilles. However, it is known La Rivière had been
seriously ill in Pignerol on several occasions. He was at death’s door in
1674 when Fouquet wrote to his wife …The other valet (Rivière) is dying
and in need of being cured as much as or even more so than myself… It
should be pointed out however that Eustache Danger was not immune from
illness.
At Exilles one of these two prisoners, Eustache Danger or La Rivière,
realised that he was dying and wished to make a will. Only La Rivière
would have been allowed to make a will. He was not a state prisoner and
his family and friends would have known that he had been working as a
valet in the service of Saint-Mars from at least 1665. At Exilles, Louvois
had asked Saint-Mars to provide information about how La Rivière had
become Fouquet’s valet. This information was almost certainly needed to
help decide what to do with La Rivière and whether he should ever be
allowed to make a will.
There was no reason why La Rivière would have been prevented from
making a will, providing of course it did not reveal any state secrets. In
complete contrast, Eustache Danger was a state prisoner who was held
incommunicado. He had officially ceased to exist following his arrest and
removal to Pignerol in 1669. He would never have been allowed to make a
will which would have revealed his secret incarceration.
There is also corroborative evidence that the surviving prisoner of the
Lower Tower was Eustache Danger and not La Rivière (or Matthioli). In
August 1691, after Saint-Mars had moved from Exilles to Sainte
Marguerite Isle, Louvois died. His son, Barbezieux, newly installed as
Minister of War wrote to Saint-Mars …when you have something to tell me
about the prisoner who has been under your guard for twenty years… The
“twenty years” quoted by Barbezieux was intended to identify the surviving
prisoner of the Lower Tower and not any of the four protestant ministers
sent to Saint Marguerite after Saint-Mars’s arrival there.
Whilst “twenty years” is a precise numerical figure, it is also used as an
approximate figure in a similar manner that in English one might say
“twenty years or so.” Barbezieux at the time of writing was new to his post
and likely did not know the exact date of imprisonment of this long-time
prisoner in Pignerol. Twenty years earlier, in 1671, the only state prisoner
to arrive at Pignerol was Lauzun. However it is well established that
Lauzun was released in 1681 and went on to live a long, eventful, and well-
documented life (see later).
The only other prisoner who arrived at Pignerol around 1671 was
Eustache Danger (he arrived in August 1669). Dubreuil, the deranged
Monk, Matthioli and his valet all arrived many years later. Neither could
Barbezieux be referring to La Rivière who arrived in Pignerol many years
earlier as a valet in 1665 and who was not imprisoned until after Fouquet’s
death in 1680. Barbezieux can only have been referring to Eustache
Danger.
Furthermore, whilst not conclusive evidence, it is also of note that the
cause of death of the prisoner who died at Exiles was Dropsy (Oedema).
This cause of death is more prevalent in older people but according to the
death certificate of the Man in the Velvet Mask, his age at death (in 1703)
he was only 45 years old. This would make him about 11 years old when he
arrived in Pignerol in 1669 and a youthful 29 years of age when one of the
two prisoners of the Lower Tower died of dropsy at Exilles in 1687. Whilst
La Rivière’s age is not known, he was already serving as a valet in 1665,
four years before Eustache Danger’s arrival at Pignerol in 1669. Thus, La
Rivière was older than Eustache Danger and more likely to be the one who
died of Dropsy.
In conclusion there is body of evidence showing that La Rivière died at
Exilles, that Eustache Danger survived and was transferred to Sainte
Marguerite in 1687 and then to the Bastille in 1698. However things are
never so simple! There is a literal and figurative twist to this “tale.” In du
Junca’s diary there is a side note on the page noting the death of the
Prisoner in the Velvet Mask. In the margin, du Junca added …P.S. I have
since learnt that on the (church death) register one has named him as
Monsieur de Marchiel (stet) and that one paid forty livres for the
internment...
Given the vagaries of seventeenth century spelling, the prisoner’s death
certificate provides a more accurate record of the name under which
th
Masked Prisoner was buried …The 19 (of November) Marchioly, aged
forty five years or about, died in the Bastille, from where the corpse has
th
been buried in the cemetery of Saint-Paul of this parish, the 20 of this
month, in the presence of Monsieur de Rosarges, Major of the Bastille and
of Monsieur Reglhe surgeon major of the Bastille who have signed...
Incredibly, the burial name of the Masked Prisoner at the Bastille was
not Eustache Danger, but Marchioly, which is clearly a phonetic spelling
variant of Matthioli!!! Despite the wide-ranging and compelling evidence
proving that Saint-Mars’s surviving prisoner of the Lower Tower was
Eustache Danger, plus evidence that Matthioli remained at Pignerol and
died during his subsequent transfer to Sainte Marguerite, it would appear
from this latest evidence, that somehow Matthioli miraculously survived
and even supplanted Eustache Danger!!
It is not surprising that with such dramatic “graveside evidence” the
Matthiolists took heart and claimed once again that Matthioli was the
Prisoner in the Velvet Mask. But to do this they needed to develop a
convoluted hypothesis which was based on a number of interdependent and
unproven suppositions, arguing amongst other things and without any
supporting evidence that Eustache Danger died on Sainte Marguerite, that
Matthioli miraculously never died during his transfer from Pignerol to
Sainte Marguerite Isle and that on the island Matthioli incredibly took over
Eustache Danger’s new sobriquet of the long-time prisoner and was
transferred to the Bastille, dying there in 1703 as the Man in the Velvet
Mask.
In this particular hypothesis the Matthiolists accepted that Matthioli
could not possibly have been the Man in the Steel Mask who was seen in
Grasse in 1687 and so at least the historical epithet of the Man in the Iron
Mask still belonged to Eustache Danger! It was not long after however that
the “Dangerists” delved once again into the archives and came up with a
counter-explanation which maintained the integrity of the evidence for the
candidacy of Eustache Danger.
It was argued that the standing orders of the Bastille required that the
identity of any state prisoner held incommunicado was never noted on a
death certificate. Prisoners were buried under a false name. Du Junca even
made a note of this rule in his diary, for the burial of another state prisoner
who had recently died …it not being suitable to state his name as he is a
state criminal…
The two witnesses who signed the Masked Prisoner’s death certificate
were members of Saint-Mars’s prison staff. One was a Major, the other the
prison surgeon. These two witnesses were certainly not privy to the true
identity of the Masked Prisoner and even if they were, would never have
the authority to reveal the dead prisoner’s true name or use the name of
another deceased prisoner who had died in another prison. Only Saint-Mars
could have instructed the two witnesses to place the name Matthioli
(Marchioly) on the death certificate. Likewise, Saint-Mars would never
have disobeyed the standing orders of the Bastille unless specifically
ordered to do so by Louis XIV or one of his Ministers of State.
But why would Louis XIV permit in 1703 the fiction that Matthioli had
only recently died at the Bastille, especially given the trouble and effort to
secretly abduct him with the stated aim of keeping his detention a
permanent state secret? In reality, the secret of Matthioli’s abduction and
imprisonment in Pignerol had leaked into the public domain shortly after
his arrest. In 1687 details of Matthioli’s abduction were published and
circulated in Italy, the Spanish territories and beyond. Even in France the
memorialist Primi Visconti recorded in his diary that Matthioli had been
incarcerated in Pignerol.
At the time of the Masked Prisoner’s death in the Bastille, Louis XIV
received a visit from the Duke of Mantou who had previously sold Casal to
Louis XIV. The Duke was still concerned that Matthioli might one day be
released from prison. Thus, in order to allay these concerns, Louis XIV
decided to take advantage of Eustache Danger’s death and conveniently kill
two birds with one stone. He ordered Matthioli’s name to be placed on
Eustache Danger’s death certificate proving that Matthioli was indeed dead
whilst at the same time concealing the hitherto secret existence and recent
demise of Eustache Danger.
Whilst this theory provided a rational explanation as to why Matthioli’s
name appeared on the Masked Prisoner’s death certificate, the
“Dangerists” hypothesis was not supported by any evidence proving
beyond reasonable doubt that the Masked Prisoner who died at the Bastille
could not possibly be Matthioli.
In order to resolve the “Danger-Matthioli” debate once and for all,
Jean-Christian Petitfils, a French researcher, historian and writer, decided
to delve one more time into the prison archives in search of additional
evidence, of a “smoking gun” quality, to establish beyond all doubt the
identity of the Prisoner in the Velvet Mask who died at the Bastille, be it
Eustache Danger or Matthioli.
Petitfils uncovered crucial new evidence in the most surprising of
archives, Saint-Mars’s prison expense accounts! The accounts reveal that
Saint-Mars was paid under two unique and separate accounting regimes.
One payment was for the two prisoners of the Lower Tower (Eustache
Danger and La Rivière). At Exilles, Saint-Mars received 5.5 Livres per day,
for each of his two prisoners. The accounts for Sainte Marguerite Isle
(1697) reveal that Saint-Mars continued to be paid under this same unique
separate accounting regime of 5.5 livres per day, but now for just one
prisoner!! This continuity of payment proves that in the year just before
Saint-Mars went to the Bastille (1697), Eustache Danger the surviving
prisoner of the Lower Tower was still alive and had not have been
supplanted by Matthioli or any of the other prisoners who were later
transferred from Pignerol to Sainte Marguerite for whom Saint-Mars
received a different rate of payment under a separate accounting regime as
shown in the accounts for 1695 when all the other prisoners at Sainte
Marguerite were paid at different rates to the long-time prisoner. Saint-
Mars received 2.5 livres per day, per prisoner, for the four prisoners under
his charge (i.e. the four Protestant Ministers) and most importantly 5.0
livres per day (Not 5.5 livres per day), per prisoner, for the three other
prisoners under his charge, i.e. the three surviving prisoners of the four who
had been transferred from Pignerol to Sainte Marguerite Island in 1694.
In case there was any remaining doubt, Petitfils also established the
names of the three prisoners who survived the transfer from Pignerol to
Sainte Marguerite in 1694. Matthioli was not included amongst them! The
three prisoners who arrived at Saint Marguerite in 1694 were le Breton,
Herse and Matthioli’s valet (whose name was Rousseau). Matthioli’s valet
and le Breton later died on Sainte Marguerite whilst Herse was transferred
to Lyon prison in 1698 when Saint-Mars left the island for the Bastille.
This evidence is corroborated by other evidence already presented, that
the fourth prisoner who died during the 1694 prison transfer could only
have been Matthioli! This final evidence is consistent with all other wide-
ranging evidence proving that Matthioli remained died in 1694 (when being
transferred to Saint Marguerite). It is also consistent with the wide-ranging
evidence proving that Eustache Danger was the surviving prisoner of the
Lower Tower, who was seen in Grasse wearing a steel mask during his
transfer to Sainte Marguerite where he became known as the long-time
prisoner and who was transferred to the Bastille in 1698, where he became
known as the Man in the Velvet Mask.
Thanks to Petitfils’s recent discoveries coupled with a wide-ranging
body of evidence uncovered over the centuries by many other historians
and researchers, the identification of the Man in the Iron Mask has been
satisfactorily resolved. However, what still remains to be discovered is
Eustache Danger’s true identity and the reason for his unusual
imprisonment. To achieve this, it is time to wind back the clock to the years
leading up to Eustache Danger’s arrest in Calais in late July 1669.
The only information that can be gleaned from the prison records is that
Eustache was male, a valet by profession, a Catholic, and according to his
death certificate, aged about 45 years when he died in November 1703
which would make him about fourteen years old in 1669. It is known that
Eustache was arrested at the end of July 1669 or a few days later and
escorted to Pignerol. The decision to arrest Eustache Danger was taken by
th
the French Court on or before the 19 July 1669 when letters were issued
for his arrest and transfer to Pignerol.
It is also known that Eustache Danger was arrested in Calais area as
evidenced by a payment voucher for the reimbursement of Captain
Vauroy’s expenses for a journey from Dunkirk to Calais for four people,
then from Calais to Pignerol for five people and then from Pignerol to
Dunkirk for four People. There was a nine-day gap between the first batch
of letters sent to Saint-Mars, Vauroy and Estrades and the official royal
warrants for Eustache Danger’s arrest and detention. It is known that during
this period the French Postal system was being reorganised and there was
no Ordinary Post between Paris and Dunkirk during this period.
Consequently, it is likely all the documents including the two warrants left
th
the French Court on or shortly after the 28 July 1669 and arrived at
th
Dunkirk about the 30 July which is when Estrades replied to Louvois, that
Captain Vauroy had just left on his mission. From the dating of these
documents, the decision to move Eustache Danger to Pignerol took place
th
on or before the 19 July 1669, but the prisoner’s transfer to Pignerol did
not commence until at least the end of July 1669.
Eustache Danger was a prisoner of consequence in 1669 to Louis XIV
and remained so for over thirty years. Saint-Mars was periodically
reminded of this. E.g., in January 1679 … prevent Eustache Danger from
having communication with anyone…since you know of what consequence
it is that nobody learns of what he knows… Likewise in 1682 … Since it is
important to prevent the prisoners at Exilles from having contact with
anyone, the King has ordered …to have them guarded with such strictness
and care that you can answer to his Majesty…
The reason for Eustache Danger’s arrest was because of something that
he had either seen, been employed at, or knew (Danger’s Secret). Whatever
this was is equally important as the true identity of Eustache Danger, the
Man in the Iron Mask. For those who chose to first read about the prison
years of the Man in the Iron Mask they can now return to chapter one to
uncover the answers to these questions. Surprisingly the search begins at
Pignerol, in 1655, ten years before Saint-Mars arrived there with Fouquet
his first prisoner!

6
Chapter 27 A valet of consequence

6
Chapter 28 – More loose ends

Chapter 28
More loose ends

th th
Lauzun was arrested on the 10 /20 October 1671 and taken to Pignerol
where he would remain for nearly ten years. Contemporary memorialists
believed that Lauzun’s fall was due to an argument he had with Louis
XIV’s mistress, Madame de Montespan. However, Montague who now had
“favoured Ambassador” status following the signing of the Secret Treaty of
Dover had access to the inner reaches of the French Court and provided
Arlington with three other possible reasons for Lauzun’s fall from grace; a)
writing discontented letters to Buckingham and Barbezieux), b) plotting to
kidnap Madame de Montespan and c) giving support and assistance to fifty
French Huguenot army officers.
However, the historian Paul Sonnino has uncovered evidence of
Lauzun’s treachery against Louis XIV! Lauzun was aware of the planned
Anglo-French invasion of the Dutch Republic and in the summer of 1671,
he secretly travelled to Brussels where he revealed to the Dutch
Ambassador there, the French plans for the land invasion of the Dutch
Netherlands! Lauzun most likely committed this act of treachery in a pique
because Louis XIV had gone back on his word and prevented Lauzun from
marrying Mademoiselle, the King’s cousin, the wealthiest lady in France.
The relationship between Buckingham and Lauzun is well documented.
Buckingham tried to intercede with Louis XIV on Lauzun’s behalf during
the Dutch war. At the camp of Zeist near Utrecht in 1672, Buckingham
pleaded for Lauzun’s release from prison. Louis XIV replied that he had his
reasons for placing Lauzun in Pignerol, to which Buckingham asked …Is it
possible Sire that a man to whom I have seen so much tenderness for the
person of your Majesty and so much faithfulness to his service is lost?..
Louis XIV replied …He is not lost but it is not yet time to end his
sentence… It would thus appear from Louis XIV’s relatively positive view
of Lauzun’s future prospects during his first year of imprisonment, that
Louis XIV was unaware of Lauzun’s treachery or simply wished to placate
Buckingham without revealing any information.
The Buckingham-Lauzun link helps resolve some unanswered questions
regarding Eustache Danger’s imprisonment, not least why Louis XIV
would not permit Eustache Danger to be placed as a valet with Lauzun.
This was because of the circular connection Martin-Roux-Buckingham-
Lauzun-Eustache Danger (alias Martin). Lauzun must never learn of
Martin’s presence in the prison, in case he sought to make political capital
out of it or inform Buckingham.
This was also the reason for Louis XIV’s subterfuge following
Fouquet’s death. When the communication hole was discovered in the
chimney between Lauzun and Fouquet’s apartments, Saint-Mars informed
the French Court that despite all the precautions taken, in his opinion
Lauzun knew most of Fouquet’s secrets (not least the secret presence and
history of Martin (alias Eustache Danger) acting as Fouquet’s valet.
Consequently, Louis XIV instructed Saint-Mars to secretly incarcerate
Eustache Danger (along with la Rivière) and inform Lauzun that he had
been released from Pignerol. This prevented Lauzun from ever making
future contact with Martin, as well as causing him to believe that following
Martin’s “release from prison” he was of no political consequence.
The identification of Martin (alias Eustache Danger) as both the Man in
the Iron Mask also helps resolve another enigma. Why was Eustache
Danger (a mere valet) moved from Calais to Pignerol nearly seven hundred
miles away? After his abduction from London, Martin was interrogated in
Calais and made to reveal all he knew about Roux’s intrigues, however
after that he was of no use to the French Court. He was not needed to give
evidence against Roux or anyone else as Louis XIV had decided that
nobody else would be put on public trial because Roux’s abduction on
foreign soil had caused a scandal throughout Western Europe. After Roux’s
execution, Louis XIV decided to let the whole affair die away. Any
reprisals against Roux’s accomplices would be carried out in secret.
The identification of Martin, alias Eustache Danger as the Man in the
Iron Mask equally resolves another enigma. Why did Captain Vauroy only
need three soldiers to help him escort Eustache Danger to Pignerol? The
simple reason was that Martin was just a young lad who could be easily
restrained by a small escort.
Whilst the Secret Treaty of Dover paved the way for Charles II to
undertake the religious conversion of his Kingdoms at a time of his
choosing after the Anglo-French declaration of war against the Dutch, in
the end, Charles II’s Grand Design came to nought. The Dutch war was
unpopular and was not a successful campaign.
During the late 1670s and early 1680s, political and religious tensions
increased dramatically in England with Popish plots being uncovered on a
regular basis. Suspicion and unrest amongst the English was further fuelled
by Charles II’s brother and heir, James, Duke of York who openly declared
himself a Catholic. There were also strong suspicions about Charles II’s
religious leanings which were fuelled in part by Primi Visconti’s book
containing details of Charles II’s Grand Design and the true details of the
Secret Treaty of Dover. Charles II, always one to take the least line of
resistance and not wishing to be forced to go on his travels again,
abandoned his Grand Design. It was only after his death-bed conversion in
1685 that his true religious leanings became public knowledge. When
Charles II’s successor James II went into exile in France in 1688, Louis
XIV continued to keep Martin, alias Eustache Danger in prison to prevent
the story of his abduction from London ever impacting on James II’s
potential return to England.
Coincidentally, the death of Charles II in 1685 saw the beginning of
Lauzun’s return to royal favour. Lauzun, now no longer living in internal
exile away from the French Court, he was as keen as ever to rehabilitate
himself with Louis XIV. After Charles II’s death, he travelled to England
during the Monmouth Rebellion to offer his services to Louis XIV’s first
cousin, the newly crowned James II, King of England, however no sooner
had Lauzun arrived and the rebellion was put down. Nevertheless, this
English non-adventure had a positive outcome in partly restoring Louis
XIV’s esteem for Lauzun.
Then three years later, another opportunity in England allowed Lauzun
to fully win back Louis XIV’s respect and favour. In October 1688, during
the “Glorious Revolution”, William of Orange and his army landed at
Torbay on the south coast of England. Despite the superiority of James II’s
army, various defections took place leading to James II’s defeat and
capture.
Lauzun, the eternal opportunist, returned again to England and offered
his services to James II and in December 1688 Lauzun carried out a
dramatic rescue, spiriting out of England to safety in France, James II’s
Catholic wife, Queen Marie-Beatrice of Modena and her young child,
James, the Prince of Wales, heir to the English, Scottish and Irish thrones,
and who is better known in history as the Old Pretender, father of Bonnie
Prince Charlie.
On his return to Paris, Lauzun was feted as a hero and fully restored to
Louis XIV’s favour. He was again granted the right of “la Grande Entrée”
(the right to enter the Louis XIV’s presence at any time). When James II
later made his own escape across to France, Lauzun received the Order of
the Garter, albeit from a dethroned king now living in exile.
Lauzun’s foreign adventures did not end there. The following year, he
was appointed Captain-General of the French contingent of King James II’s
st
army and was sent to retake Ireland. On the 1 July 1690 (old style) Lauzun
commanded the French troops at the Battle of the Boyne against the British
and Dutch troops of William of Orange (now King William III of Great
Britain and Ireland). The Battle of the Boyne was one of a string of defeats
for James II, causing him to flee Ireland. Once again Lauzun came to James
II’s rescue, ensuring the ex-King’s orderly retreat out of Ireland and safe
return to what became a permanent exile in France.
Lauzun went on to live a long eventful life, dying at 90 years of age on
th
the 19 November 1723, outliving Charles II, Louis XIV, James II, William
of Orange, Saint-Mars, Fouquet and of course the Man in the Velvet Mask,
alias the Masked Prisoner, alias the long-time prisoner, alias the Man in the
Steel Mask, alias the Prisoner of the Lower Tower, alias the prisoner
brought by Major Vauroy, alias Eustache Danger, alias Martin the ex-valet
of Roux de Marcilly, but best known in history as the Man in the Iron
Mask.

6
Annexe

Annexe

Critical peer review

All solutions to a mystery must stand up to impartial critical scrutiny.

The initial findings of this Cold Case Review were presented to a number
of specialist researchers, historians and writers who raised various queries
on the candidacy of Martin. Whilst these are covered in previous chapters,
they are examined in further detail below:

It is just pure coincidence that a valet was wanted in London by the

French for political reasons at the same time that an arrest warrant was
issued for a valet in France:
Andrew Lang, who first proposed the candidacy of Martin, did not have
sight of the archive material available today that provides a much stronger
case for Martin’s candidacy. The best response to a claim that it was a pure
coincidence that there were two valets wanted at the same time is best
answered by updating Lang’s original conclusion to fully reflect current
knowledge:
…A French valet named Martin who resided in London in early July
1669 was wanted by the French Court because;
• He was a valet of Roux, who had plotted to overthrow and
assassinate Louis XIV,
• And Louis XIV instructed Croissy to have him returned to France
because he must know something incriminating against Roux and his
co-conspirators,
• and who was also needed to provide evidence against Roux, due to
a lack of witnesses,
• and Louis XIV instructed Croissy to stop at nothing to win over
and have Martin return to France,
• and Croissy subsequently informed Louis XIV that he would have
the Martin returned to France if he discovered that the valet knew
something useful,
• and it was subsequently discovered that Martin knew something
important about Roux, and would not divulge it, (but a French judge
would soon may him talk),
• and Martin refused to return to France,
• and Croissy devised a well-documented plan to have Martin
abducted and taken to Calais,
• for which there was a small window of opportunity for the
st
abduction between the 1 July when Croissy wrote to the French Court
th
about Martin and 19 July 1669 when preparations began at the French
Court to remove a valet named Eustache Danger from Calais to
Pignerol,
• and although the French Court issued instructions to Croissy not
to carry out Martin’s abduction, these instructions did not arrive until
th
the 18 July 1669, seventeen days later and which were only issued to
direct any blame for Martin’s abduction away from Croissy,
• and in the meantime, Croissy was under pressure to act quickly
because Martin was now a flight risk following his second
interrogation,
• and Louis XIV concealed Martin’s abduction to avoid upsetting
Charles II on account of the secret negotiations for the Grand Design,
then in progress,
• and after Roux’s rushed execution, the French Court now had a
valet that they no longer needed as a witness, following Louis XIV’s
decision to let the Roux affair die away,
• and the French Court could not now release Martin in case this
caused a scandal in London and compromised the Secret Negotiations
between Louis XIV and Charles II, for the Grand Design which were
 now at a critical stage,
• and Martin was a young lad at the time of his abduction whose
age fits the age at death of the Man in the Iron Mask,
• and there is also evidence of the French Court at this time
carrying out a cover up operation to justify Croissy’s actions should the
English Court learned of the abduction, by informing the English
Ambassador in confidence of a man being “clapt-up” in London for
supposedly attempting to kill Croissy,
thus, it is inconceivable that Martin cannot be the same person as
Eustache Danger, also a valet, who at this same time was removed from
Calais to a remote prison in France (Pignerol) for which there is no
rational reason to have a valet taken there other than this prison being
located at the other end of the French kingdom, as far as possible from
England.
This updated version of Lang’s rationale illustrates that instead of the
two events being a mere coincidence, there is an overwhelming body of
evidence proving that these two valets are the one and same person.

Roux was a protestant and would not have employed a Catholic valet.
The prisoner Eustache Danger was clearly a Catholic:
Roux was a protestant who actively plotted against Louis XIV, a
Catholic King. However, Roux showed no resentment against Catholics.
He simply stood against Louis XIV’s absolute monarchy and wanted it
replaced by a Republic. Roux was happy to achieve this with the assistance
of Catholic Countries including the Austrian Empire, Spain and its northern
territories (the Spanish Netherlands and Franche-Comté). Ruvigny’s report
also states that Roux’s Committee of Ten consisted of …Catholics and
Huguenots acting together…
There is no reason why Roux would not have employed a Catholic valet
Research by Paul Sonnino has revealed that Roux previously employed a
Catholic valet. In 1651 …in the midst of these tribulations, we find Claude
(Roux) as a signatory to the marriage of another one of his valets, a
Catholic named Jean Espinasse…

The valet in England was named Martin whilst the valet imprisoned in
France was named Eustache Danger. They are not the same names so are
not the same people:
There are many reasons why in England Martin might have chosen to
be known by the name Martin instead of Eustache Danger (if indeed this
was his real name and not merely a prison alias). Martin is both a French
name and an English name. A new country, a new start, a new name, a new
identity.
Martin can be a forename, a surname, a middle name or even a
nickname. Martin was a young French boy and if his name was Eustache
Danger, he could have been called Martin simply because his father was
also named Eustache.
However, it is more likely that Eustache Danger was a prison-alias
given after the abduction to conceal Martin’s true identity. There are many
examples of such prison-aliases. Matthioli after he was abducted was given
the prison-name Lestang. The four protestant ministers on Sainte
Marguerite all had prison-aliases. Martin might even have revealed that his
true name was Eustache Martin and that he came from Angers, hence he
was given the prison name Eustache d’Anger. Martin’s arrest warrant was
made out in the name of Eustache Danger rather than his real name in order
to ensure that in Calais there was no difficulty in the prisoner held under
this name being handed over to Captain Vauroy.

The French King would not have issued a lettre de cachet under a false
name (i.e. Eustache Danger in place of Martin):
There are many examples where a lettre de cachet (imprisonment
warrant) was issued under an alias instead of a real name, including two
others in 1669 …la Chambre, dit Jean Voille, valet du sieur de Courboyer,
le 3 Octobre 1669 and Imbotti, dit Bernadin (Hector), le 10 Octobre 1669...
Even Roux’s lettre de cachet was issued using the incorrect name of “Roux
de Marcilly” when it was well known that his real name was simply Claude
Roux or Le Roux. It is also feasible that Eustache Danger was simply
Martin’s real name (see above).

Martin’s role in Roux’s intrigues, apart from carrying letters to and

from people such as Arlington’s secretary, was not important. Martin’s
knowledge of what was going on must have been limited to his assessment
of the people he saw his master with and his interpretation of their overall
conversations. It is unlikely that Martin had anything of additional
significance to what the French Government already knew or suspected:
 Even if Martin only possessed limited information on Roux, this was
potentially of use to the French Court. The key consideration is not what
Martin actually knew, but what the French Court and Croissy believed
Martin knew. Even before Martin’s interrogation Louis XIV and Lionne
were convinced that Martin must have useful information that would help
convict Roux and after Martin’s interrogation Monsieur Joly and Croissy
were convinced that Martin knew important information about Roux and
was wilfully not revealing it. Croissy in turn informed the French court of
this.

One cannot ignore Lionne’s letter to Croissy of the 13th July

(instruction not to abduct Martin), which is just six days before the French
Court issued letters to d'Estrades and Saint-Mars on the 19th July relating
to the forthcoming arrest of Eustache Danger:
The key consideration here is not the date it was sent, but when Croissy
th th
actually received it. Croissy did not receive this instruction until the 8 /18
July, over two weeks after Martin’s abduction. Croissy informed the French
Court that he would have Martin removed to France if it transpired that he
knew something, which was found to be the case. Lionne’s tardy
instruction not to abduct Martin was received some seventeen days after
Croissy wrote to Lionne about Martin and was intended to persuade the
English that Croissy had no hand in Martin’s disappearance.
After his second interrogation there was now a real risk that Martin
would go into hiding. Croissy had to act quickly, so carried out Martin’s
abduction long before he received Lionne’s tardy instruction that Martin
was no longer needed in France. Martin was abducted and taken to Calais
very early in July, over two weeks before the French Court began arranging
for Martin (alias Eustache Danger) to be transferred from Calais to
Pignerol.

When Eustache Danger’s lettre de cachet was finally despatched on the

18th/28th July to Captain de Vauroy, Eustache Danger had not been
arrested. This is evident from the arrest warrant also of that date. The
French King was not accountable to anybody and so would not sign a
warrant to retrospectively regularise a previous operation. For example,
during the Matthioli affair Louis XIV did not sign an arrest warrant
because Matthioli had already been arrested.
The French Court issued both an arrest warrant and an imprisonment
warrant for Eustache Danger. The arrest warrant was needed for Captain
Vauroy to remove Martin from his place of detention in Calais and place
him under his custody (Martin had been abducted without an arrest
warrant). The separate lettre de cachet (imprisonment warrant) was given
to Saint-Mars in Pignerol.
It is even possible that the courier who travelled from Calais to the
French Court to inform them of Martin’s arrival in France did not know
exactly where Martin was to be detained, hence a warrant to arrest him on
sight.
The example cited of Matthioli’s abduction is not valid. Catinat
received written instructions to arrest and abduct Matthioli. Furthermore,
Matthioli was placed directly in Pignerol where he remained for several
years. Thus, there was no need for an arrest warrant to transfer him to
another prison. Saint-Mars received a letter from Louvois advising him of
Matthioli’s imminent arrival and ordered him not to object receiving the
prisoner. In 1694 Matthioli was transferred to another prison and the
appropriate warrants were issued for him and three other prisoners to be
taken to Sainte Marguerite.
As regards the retrospective issue of a lettre de cachet, the Roux affair
itself provides an example of Louis XIV issuing an imprisonment warrant
th th
retrospectively. Roux’s lettre de cachet was dated the 7 /17 May 1669,
nd th
five days after Roux’s abduction from Switzerland (on the 2 /12 May
1669). Roux was first taken to the prison at Lyon where he was held before
being transferred to the Bastille. However, unlike Roux, Martin was
abducted without an arrest warrant. After his abduction Martin was held
temporarily in one prison (Calais) before being moved to another prison
(Pignerol). Martin (alias Eustache Danger) required not only a retrospective
lettre de cachet, in order to have him imprisoned in Pignerol but also an
arrest warrant.
There are also several examples in du Junca’s diary of people being
arrested in various parts of France without any arrest warrant and it was
only after being escorted to Paris that a letter de cachet issued
retrospectively.

The arrest of Eustache Danger, according to Louvois, was because of

either what he knew or what he had seen or been employed at prior to his
arrest (Danger’s Secret), which allows one to suppose that Danger was
employed by the French authorities:
 Whilst it is theoretically possible that Danger was employed by the
French authorities, this is only a supposition and a remote one too, based on
a general fact that Eustache Danger was privy to a secret of some sort. The
supposition is made without supporting evidence. Whatever it was that
Eustache Danger had seen, knew or been employed at in his past life, it
could equally and more sensibly apply to anything that he, as a valet, might
inadvertently seen, heard or learned in the course of performing his normal
duties as a valet, without concluding that he was employed as a spy or
otherwise employed by the French authorities.

At Pignerol why was there so much concern that Martin, alias Eustache
Danger, might reveal the secret of how he had been employed prior to his
imprisonment. What difference would it have made to the French
government that La Rivière or anyone else found out that Martin had been
a valet of Roux. Louvois in 1680, referring to Eustache Danger, wrote to
Fouquet…you know of what consequence it is that nobody learns of what
he knows…. This was 21 years after the Roux Affair, now long forgotten.
What relevance could the minor role that Eustache Danger played have in
1680?
There is ample evidence that Eustache Danger throughout his whole
imprisonment was a prisoner of consequence. The fact that today we do not
know the full reasons does not diminish this fact. It can be conjectured that
in 1669 nobody must learn that Martin (alias Eustache Danger) had been
abducted from English soil because of the potential ramifications that this
might have on the Secret Negotiations between Charles II and Louis XIV.
After Fouquet’s death in 1680, the Louis XIV issued instructions to secretly
imprison Eustache Danger and La Rivière, and inform Lauzun (and any
others) that they had been released. From thereon, Lauzun must never learn
that they were still alive.

Since Eustache Danger was known to Fouquet, to claim that Martin and
Eustache Danger are the same person would require linking Martin to
Fouquet, which would require going back to before Fouquet’s
imprisonment in 1661:
There is no evidence to suggest that Eustache Danger and Fouquet
knew each other prior to Fouquet’s arrest in 1661. The fact that Martin and
Eustache Danger were the one same person does not require linking Martin
or Eustache Danger with Fouquet prior to his imprisonment in 1661. To do
so is making a number of inter-dependant suppositions beginning with
Louvois’s 1679 letter to Fouquet in which he stated …you know of what
consequence it is that nobody learns of what he knows... Supposition no.1
would assume that from this statement Fouquet must know Danger’s
Secret. Supposition no. 2, which is extrapolated from supposition no 1,
assumes that Fouquet and Eustache Danger therefore must have known
each other before Fouquet’s arrest in 1661. Supposition no. 3, which is
extrapolated from supposition no. 2, assumes that the reasons for
Eustache’s arrest therefore must be related to events that occurred prior to
Fouquet’s arrest in 1661, even though Eustache Danger was not arrested
until 1669, eight years later.
Whilst there might be a remote theoretical possibility that this triple
extrapolation of suppositions is well-founded, there is no evidence to
support it and they are made without due regard to other much simpler
explanations which far better account for Louvois’s statement.
The simplest supposition being that Fouquet only knew Eustache
Danger from 1675 when he became Fouquet’s part-time valet in Pignerol
prison and it was during this period that Fouquet learned about Danger’s
Secret although it is equally likely that Fouquet never learned Danger’s
Secret. Louvois’s letter to Fouquet in December 1678, asking whether La
Rivière knew anything about Danger’s past life, would have been sufficient
in itself to make Fouquet appreciate (without knowing the intimate details
of Danger’s Secret) that Eustache Danger was a person of consequence to
the French King.

Why must Lauzun never learn about the presence of Martin, whereas
Martin was allowed to be placed with Fouquet?
This was due to the link between Martin-Roux-Buckingham-Lauzun.
Martin was a former valet of Roux who in turn had been intriguing with
Buckingham, who in turn was a great friend of Lauzun. The French knew
that Roux had been plotting with Buckingham (revealed via Ruvigny,
Roux’s own seized documents and Jacques Gueston’s detailed letter to
Croissy). The Martin-Roux-Buckingham-Lauzun link had the potential to
cause difficulties for Louis XIV, especially given Lauzun’s unpredictable
temperament.
Consequently, Louis XIV decided that Lauzun must never have the
opportunity to converse with Eustache Danger (alias Martin) in case he
learned something and capitalised on it after his release. The placing of
Martin with Fouquet on the other hand did not pose any problems. Fouquet
would never be released from prison and after many years in prison
Fouquet could be relied upon to be discreet, especially after the
improvements to his prison regime, which in his old age he would not wish
to lose.
Just a month before Lauzun’s arrest and removal to Pignerol, Montague
the English Ambassador was instructed to negotiate a reduction in the
agreed levy of 6,000 English soldiers for the Dutch war. If this dispensation
was obtained Buckingham would lose his treasured opportunity to lead
troops into battle and he strongly objected to the proposal. The French
Court’s low opinion of Buckingham at this time is evidenced in Montague’s
th rd
despatch to Charles II on the 13 /23 September 1671. …Mr Lauzun…told
me that the Duke of Buckingham had engaged to bring over such good men
that he thought it would be impossible to prevail with the King (Louis XIV)
to release you (Charles II) from your agreement…However (Louvois)
informed me by what we now know of Monsieur de Buckingham, we believe
him to be an incompatible person and we absolutely do not want him to
play the evil one here as he does in England…
th th
A little less than a month later, on the 10 /20 October 1671, Lauzun
was arrested and taken to Pignerol where he would remain for nearly ten
years. Contemporary memorialists believed that Lauzun’s fall was due to
an argument he had with Louis XIV’s mistress, Madame de Montespan.
However, Montague who now had “favoured Ambassador” status following
the signing of the Secret Treaty of Dover had access to the inner reaches of
the French Court and provided Arlington with three other possible reasons
for Lauzun’s fall from grace; a) writing discontented letters to Buckingham
and Barbezieux), b) plotting to kidnap Madame de Montespan and c)
giving support and assistance to fifty French Huguenot army officers.
However, the historian Paul Sonnino has uncovered evidence of
Lauzun’s treachery against Louis XIV! Lauzun was aware of the planned
Anglo-French invasion of the Dutch Republic and in the summer of 1671,
he secretly travelled to Brussels where he revealed to the Dutch
Ambassador there, the French plans for the land invasion of the Dutch
Netherlands! Lauzun most likely committed this act of treachery in a pique
because Louis XIV had gone back on his word and prevented Lauzun from
marrying Madamoiselle, the King’s cousin, the wealthiest lady in France.
The relationship between Buckingham and Lauzun was certainly strong
enough to prompt Buckingham to intercede with Louis XIV on Lauzun’s
behalf. During the Dutch war, at the camp of Zeist near Utrecht in 1672,
Buckingham pleaded for Lauzun’s release from prison. Louis XIV replied
that he had his reasons for placing Lauzun in Pignerol, to which
Buckingham asked …Is it possible Sire that a man to whom I have seen so
much tenderness for the person of your Majesty and so much faithfulness to
his service is lost?.. Louis XIV replied …He is not lost but it is not yet time
to end his sentence… It would thus appear from Louis XIV’s relatively
positive view of Lauzun’s future prospects during his first year of
imprisonment, that Louis XIV was unaware of Lauzun’s treachery or
simply wished to placate Buckingham without revealing any information.
The Buckingham-Lauzun link helps resolve some unanswered questions
regarding Eustache Danger’s imprisonment, not least why Louis XIV
would not permit Eustache Danger to be placed as a valet with Lauzun.
This was because of the circular connection Martin-Roux-Buckingham-
Lauzun-Eustache Danger (alias Martin) Lauzun must never learn of
Martin’s presence in the prison, in case he sought to make political capital
out of it and/or inform Buckingham.
These same connections were likewise the reason for Louis XIV’s
subterfuge following Fouquet’s death. After the communication hole was
discovered in the chimney between Lauzun and Fouquet’s apartments,
Saint-Mars informed the French Court that in his opinion Lauzun knew
most of Fouquet’s secrets (not least the secret presence and history of
Martin (alias Eustache Danger) acting as Fouquet’s valet. Consequently,
Saint-Mars was instructed to secretly incarcerate Eustache Danger (along
with la Rivière) while informing Lauzun that he had been released from
Pignerol. This prevented Lauzun from ever making future contact with
Martin, as well as causing him to believe that following Martin’s “release
from prison” he was of no political consequence to Louis XIV.
The identification of Martin, alias Eustache Danger as the Man in the
Steel and Velvet Masks equally resolves another enigma. Why did Captain
Vauroy only need three soldiers to help him escort Eustache Danger to
Pignerol? The simple reason was that Martin was then just a young boy
who could be easily restrained by a small escort.

************

Review of other recent claims to the identity of

the Man in the Iron Mask
 Whilst this Cold Case Review has revealed the true identity of the Man
in the Iron Mask, it is worthwhile to examine other claims that have been
made over the past decade or so.
Unfortunately, some writers have presented their solutions on the basis
of unproven suppositions. Whilst the use of suppositions to formulate a
working hypothesis might usefully point where to begin searching for a
solution to an enigma, however unless evidence is subsequently presented
that proves that the initial suppositions was well-founded and without
circular arguments, then they must remain just that and cannot later be
represented as evidence in themselves to support a candidate who just
happens to fit these unproven suppositions.
Some writers have even gone a step further and have disregarded
contradictory evidence because it inconveniently disproves their proposed
solution to the enigma. Some writers have equally ignored the law of
parsimony (a.k.a. Occam's razor) which logically requires that a good
hypothesis should not be reliant on a chain of inter-dependant unproven
suppositions, each one contrived to accommodate some unanswered
aspects of a hypothesis. The inverse of this rule is equally valid, i.e. the
simplest hypothesis, requiring a minimum amount of suppositions, leads to
the correct solution.
One particular unproven supposition that has been proposed by some
writers involves two letters that Louvois wrote to Fouquet in December
1678 and January 1679. In the first letter Louis XIV enquires whether la
Rivière had learned anything about Danger’s Secret (i.e. What Eustache
Danger had seen, been employed at, or knew during his past life). It is
notable that in this letter Fouquet was not asked if he himself knew
anything about Danger’s Secret. An initial supposition was then made that
Louis XIV did not ask Fouquet about what he personally knew about
Eustache Danger because the King was already aware that Fouquet knew
Danger’s Secret. A second supposition was then extrapolated from this first
supposition, that Fouquet and Eustache Danger must therefore have known
each other prior to Fouquet’s imprisonment in September 1661 and that
Danger’s Secret must therefore be related to events that occurred prior to
1661.
Whilst such a hypothesis, derived from this chain of dependent
suppositions is theoretically possible, its probability decreases
exponentially with each extrapolated supposition. It also introduces the
most unlikely scenario that Eustache Danger’s arrest in August 1669 was
related to events that had occurred eight years or more before his arrest.
Of equal significance, this hypothesis is made without due regard being
given to a much simpler supposition, that Louis XIV had assumed that
Fouquet knew Danger’s Secret, having simply learned about it during the
three years during which Eustache Danger served as Fouquet’s part-time
second valet.
There is even a simpler hypothesis supported by corroborative evidence,
that Fouquet (and La Rivière ) knew nothing at all about Danger’s Secret.
On grounds of pure self-survival Eustache Danger would not have revealed
his Secret to anybody. From his arrival at Pignerol prison in 1669, Eustache
Danger was repeatedly threatened with immediate death if ever he spoke to
anybody other than about his daily needs. It is also known that before
placing Eustache Danger with Fouquet, Saint-Mars would have repeated
this threat (Saint-Mars informed Louvois that he would do this when he
first suggested placing Eustache Danger with Lauzun). Eustache Danger
took these death threats literally and acted upon them accordingly. In 1670,
another prisoner or valet managed to speak to Eustache Danger shortly
before his special isolation cell was ready. Eustache Danger refused to
answer any questions and asked to be left in peace.
Although Fouquet knew nothing about Danger’s Secret, upon reading
Louvois’s letter requesting advice on what La Rivière knew about Eustache
Danger’s past, this alone would have made Fouquet aware, without
knowing the reason why, that Eustache Danger must be a person of
consequence to Louis XIV. Later, Fouquet was left in no doubt at all on this
when in his second letter to Fouquet Louvois wrote …His Majesty expects
that you will take care to contribute to this since you know of what
consequence it is that nobody learns of what he knows... Notably,
Louvois’s comment here was not an acknowledgement that Fouquet knew
the detail of Danger’s Secret. It simply acknowledged that Fouquet knew
that Danger’s Secret existed (whatever it was) and that it was of
consequence to Louis XIV and that nobody must learn about it.
As regards La Rivière’s knowledge of Danger’s Secret, if either
Fouquet or Saint-Mars had advised Louis XIV that La Rivière knew
anything about Danger’s Secret then La Rivière, as holder of such
“sensitive information”, would never have been allowed to remain in
Fouquet’s apartment under the later relaxed prison regime when Fouquet
received visitors (including Lauzun) in his apartment. Instead Louis XIV
would have instructed Saint-Mars to remove both La Rivière and Eustache
Danger whenever Fouquet had visitors, or just simply instructed Saint-Mars
to permanently withdraw them both and place them incommunicado in a
secure cell (i.e. a year before the actual event) and instructed Saint-Mars to
find two replacement valets.
There is also evidence that La Rivière had never met Eustache Danger
prior to the relaxed prison regime of January 1679. Saint-Mar’s orders until
then had been to place Eustache Danger with Fouquet ONLY after La
Rivière had been removed …His Majesty gives permission for the prisoner
brought by Monsieur de Vauroy to serve as a valet to Monsieur Fouquet,
but whatever might occur you must refrain from putting him with Monsieur
Lauzun, or with anyone else. That is to say that you can give the said
prisoner to Monsieur Fouquet when he does not have his valet (La
Rivière) and not otherwise... Again, Saint-Mars would not have disobeyed
these orders. Thus it can only be adduced that when Fouquet and Saint-
Mars were requested to provide advice, they informed Louis XIV that La
Rivière knew nothing about Danger and his Secret.
After considering the advice provided by Fouquet and Saint-Mars,
Louis XIV subsequently instructed that Eustache Danger and La Rivière
could serve together as valets to Fouquet on the condition that only
Eustache Danger was removed from Fouquet’s apartment whenever
Fouquet had visitors especially Lauzun. It was not until a year later, in
March 1680, upon discovery of the communication hole in the chimney,
that Saint-Mars informed Louvois that in his opinion …Monsieur Lauzun
knows most of the important things that Monsieur Fouquet was acquainted
with and that the named La Rivière knows them too… It is important to
appreciate that this was only Saint-Mars’s opinion which was made on the
basis of discovering the hole in the chimney. Saint-Mars did not know
Danger’s Secret. He was only aware that Louis XIV had left it for him and
Fouquet to work together to ensure that Lauzun never discovered that
Eustache Danger was a secret state prisoner who worked as a valet in
Fouquet’s apartment.
Thus when Saint-Mars discovered the communicating hole in the
chimney, Saint-Mars reasonably assumed that Lauzun must now be aware
of everything that …Monsieur Fouquet was acquainted with… including
the presence of Eustache Danger (a secret state prisoner) working in
Fouquet’s apartment. Saint-Mars opinion…that the La Rivière knows them
too… was simply made on the basis that La Rivière would have overheard
any conversations that Lauzun had with Fouquet. Consistent with the
oblique language used throughout the prison correspondence all this was
carefully stated to make it difficult for any outsider to understand.
When Eustache Danger and La Rivière were both secretly placed
incommunicado in a secure cell, almost certainly this was the special cell
that had been already been prepared for Eustache Danger in 1669.
It was now necessary to explain away the sudden disappearance of these
two valets and the only sensible solution was to convince Lauzun (and
anybody else who enquired) that they had both freely left the prison after
Fouquet’s death, which is what would be expected if they were not seen
again working in the prison after Fouquet’s death. It can reasonably be
inferred from this minimal deception played on Lauzun, that whatever
Lauzun might have learned regarding the …important things that Monsieur
Fouquet was acquainted with… Louis XIV considered that it was not
something so sensitive that Lauzun would not fail dismiss it as something
unimportant once he was informed that Eustache Danger and La Rivière
had freely left Pignerol following their master’s death.
Whereas the foregoing hypothesis is based on evidence in the prison
correspondence, other hypotheses are by and large based on
unsubstantiated suppositions, including conspiracy theories such as
Fouquet was poisoned by Eustache Danger or that Fouquet never died and
that despite his old age he went on to become the prisoner in the velvet
mask who died in the Bastille in late 1703, who was only aged about 45
years (Nb. Fouquet was born in 1615).
One recent hypothesis that Fouquet was the Man in the Iron Mask is
predicated on a string of interdependent unproved suppositions starting
with a letter Louvois sent to Saint-Mars, in March 1680, just two weeks
before Fouquet’s death. Louvois wrote …the intention of the King is that
you do not pay to Monsieur Fouquet the wages of one of his valets who is
dead... The first unsubstantiated supposition is that the unnamed valet who
died was either Eustache Danger or La Rivière. Then from this supposition
an astounding second “quantum leap” supposition was made, that somehow
Fouquet never died and from this a third supposition was made that
Fouquet was secretly placed incommunicado with his surviving valet and
they later became the two prisoners of the Lower Tower.
This hypothesis besides not being proved is equally at variance with
wide-ranging contradictory evidence, not least the unequivocal evidence
that both Eustache Danger and La Rivière were still alive after Fouquet’s
death. The suppositions are also made without any regard to a far simpler
supposition that Louvois’s comments regarding the valet who died was a
reference to Champagne, Fouquet’s first valet who had died some years
earlier in 1674. Fouquet was dearly fond of him and mourned his death. He
even asked his wife to take care of the deceased valet’s brother. It is
therefore quite understandable under the new relaxed prison regime that
Fouquet in failing health and likely aware of his forthcoming demise, was
putting his affairs in order and attempted to recoup Champagne’s unpaid
wages from Saint-Mars in order to pass them on to the dead valet’s brother.
There is corroborative evidence to support this much simpler supposition.
Valet’s wages were often paid up to three or more years in arrears and
although there is evidence that Champagne and La Rivière ’s wages were
withheld for misbehaviour, there is evidence that they were reinstated. In
February 1672 Saint-Mars received three years back payment for La
Rivière ’s wages.
This hypothesis also ignores overwhelming documentary evidence that
Fouquet died at Pignerol in March 1680 and that Louis XIV subsequently
ordered the release of Fouquet’s body to his family. Research by J C
Petitfils and others proves that Fouquet’s corpse remained for a year at
Pignerol in a church vault before it was finally removed to Paris for burial
th
in the family vault in the Church of the Visitation in Paris …On 28 March
1681, Monsieur Nicolas Fouquet was buried in our church in the St.
Frances de Sales Chapel, who was granted all degrees of honour of public
office, parliamentary Counsellor, Master of Requests, Procurator General,
Superintendent of Finances and Minister of State…
Another hypothesis (again dependent on a chain of unfounded
extrapolated suppositions) suggests that Fouquet had been poisoned on
Louvois’s orders. This unproven hypothesis incredibly argued that Louvois
and Saint-Mars disobeyed the King’s orders and with a mind on future
researchers and historians discovering this several centuries later, purposely
seeded the prison archives with false misleading documents!
A variant of the this hypothesis involved an additional incredible
supposition that Louvois instructed Saint-Mars to order Eustache Danger to
poison Fouquet and that the release of Fouquet’s body was delayed in order
to allow the poison in the corpse to dissipate. This unfounded supposition
totally ignores incontestable dating evidence in the prison correspondence
which proves that there was no attempt at all to delay the release of
Fouquet’s body. The delay in releasing Fouquet’s body was simply due to
the time required to send letters between Paris and Pignerol. Fouquet’s son
the Marquis de Vaux did not write to the French Court to request the release
th
of Fouquet’s body until the 29 March, nearly a week after Fouquet’s
death. Allowing ten days for this letter to arrive at the French Court from
th
Pignerol, it would not have arrived there before the 8 April 1680. On this
very day Louvois obtained Louis XIV’s permission, and diligently replied
the same day to Fouquet’s family informing them …Monsieur, I have
th
received the letter that you took the trouble to write to me on the 29 of last
month (March). I have spoken to the King about the permission that your
mother requests of being able to take away the corpse of Monsieur
Fouquet. You may assure her that she will not have any difficulty in this and
his Majesty has given me the order for this… Allowing a further ten days
for Louvois’s orders to arrive in Pignerol, Saint-Mars would not have
th
received the authority to release Fouquet’s body until the 18 April, at the
earliest, nearly four weeks after Fouquet’s death.
These various unfounded suppositions also give no regard whatsoever
to overwhelming contradictory evidence, not least evidence of Fouquet’s
rapidly failing health during the early part of 1680.
Beyond these unproven hypotheses, there is also a mountain of
speculation on the identity of the Masked Prisoner which enters the realms
of fantasia relying on totally unfounded suppositions and/or hearsay
evidence which has been excluded from this Cold Case Review because of
its inherent unreliability.
As regards “Danger’s Secret”, the two letters from Louvois to Fouquet
in late 1678 and early 1679 most usefully reveal that Eustache Danger had
not committed any serious crime, which explains why he was not harshly
treated. He had simply been arrested and placed incommunicado to prevent
anyone learning about what he knew, had seen or been employed at.
In his letter to Saint-Mars in July 1669 Louvois described Eustache
Danger as a wretch. This was not because Eustache Danger was a low-life
criminal, he was simply a wretched person, i.e. someone to be pitied, as a
consequence of being imprisoned incommunicado for the rest of his natural
life to prevent anyone else from learning Danger’s Secret.
Some writers argue that Danger’s Secret must have become less
significant with the passage of time. Whilst this might be the case,
nevertheless, for reasons that are still not fully understood there is no doubt
that over thirty four years Louis XIV’s instructions to Saint-Mars for
guarding Eustache Danger were unwavering… hold him under good and
secure guard until a new order from the King, forbidding that he has any
communication with whoever in person or in writing…
Louvois’s 1679 letter to Fouquet confirms that Eustache Danger was
still a person of consequence …you know of what consequence it is that
nobody learns of what he knows… Likewise, each time that Eustache
Danger was transferred to another prison, correspondence from the French
Court to Saint-Mars in 1681, 1687 and 1698 all confirmed Louis XIV’s
original instructions, that Eustache Danger was not to have any
communication whatsoever with anyone.
 ********

James De La Cloche

A partial history of James de La Cloche is given in several works,

however they do not include these recent discoveries. An updated concise
history of James de La Cloche up to his enrolment at a Novitiate in the
Jesuit Seminary in Rome is provided below.

La Cloche’s maternal lineage

There are various documents which mention La Cloche’s mother. In his

th th
last will and testament dated 14 /24 August 1669, La Cloche claimed that
he was the natural son of King Charles II and …Lady Mary Stuart of the
family of the Barons of St. Marzo.... In other documents La Cloche claimed
that his mother was … a lady of the royal Stuart blood...of a great family
…of his Majesty’s Royal Family; whose nearness and greatness of blood
was the cause that his Majesty would never acknowledge him for his son….
Mezières-Brady writing in the 1880s noted that La Cloche claimed that
his mother was descended from the family of the Barons of Marzo, an
Italianised version of the Earls of March, and suggested that La Cloche’s
mother might be found within this family. In the seventeenth century the
Earldom of March was held by a family which indeed bore the
Stuart/Stewart name and was related to the royal Stuart blood line.
Eighty years later, in the 1960s, Washington noted that La Cloche
claimed in his last will and testament the title and lands of the Marquisate
of Aubigny. Washington discovered that the same Stuart family who held
the earldom of March also held the title and lands of the Lordship of
Aubigny in France. Washington went as far as to tentatively suggest that La
Cloche’s mother might be Mary Stuart, the Duchess of Richmond (1622–
1685). However, his identification was made on an erroneous premise that
both the Duchess and Charles II (then Prince of Wales) were together in
Paris at the time of La Cloche’s conception, Washington had used La
Cloche’s incorrect birth date. In any case, Washington later dismissed this
tentative suggestion in favour of yet another incorrect candidate.
In the seventeenth century the Earldom of March was a minor title
attached to the Duke of Richmond and Lennox, being a courtesy title given
to the eldest son who would ultimately inherit the senior ducal titles. At the
time of La Cloche’s birth, during the 1640s the Earldom of March was held
by James Stuart, 1st Duke of Richmond/4th Duke of Lennox. At this time
the duke was childless and so retained the title Earl of March. His wife,
Mary Stuart, Duchess of Richmond was thus also known as the Countess of
March, a title which she retained until 1649, on the birth of her legitimate
son, Esmé Stuart.
Furthermore, the Aubigny title to which La Cloche laid claim, was held
by the Duke of Richmond’s younger brother who was none other than
th
Abbot Ludovic Stuart, 11 Sire d’Aubigny for whom Charles II had
requested a Cardinal’s hat in 1663 when he approached the Pope on his
desire to become a Catholic! Ludovic Stuart died heirless in 1665 and La
Cloche based his claim on the Aubigny title presumably on the grounds that
it should pass to him through his mother the widowed Duchess of
Richmond whose legitimate son had since died. In fact, Ludovic Stuart had
wrongly acquired the Aubigny title from an elder brother the tenth Sire
d’Aubigny who had secretly married and sired a son and true heir, Charles
Stuart. Unknown to La Cloche, prior to his death, Ludovic agreed that his
usurped nephew Charles Stuart would inherit the Aubigny title after he
died.
Whilst La Cloche was unaware this private arrangement, La Cloche’s
claim that his mother was the Duchess or Richmond and his claim to the
Aubigny title were ostensibly founded on some legal basis and not the wild
unfounded claims of a hoaxer as maintained by the hoax theorists. There is
a thus a possibility that La Cloche’s parents were indeed Charles II and the
Duchess of Richmond.
A simple litmus test to quickly help determine if La Cloche’s claim was
at all credible would be to ascertain whether his alleged parents were in
proximity to each other at the time of La Cloche’s conception. When he
entered the Jesuit Seminary in April 1668, La Cloche stated that he was 24
years old. Depending on whether he had just turned 24 years of age or was
th
approaching his 25 birthday, La Cloche’s conception date occurred
sometime between August 1642 and August 1643 during the English Civil
War (assuming a normal pregnancy term).
At this time, Mary, Duchess of Richmond was a senior lady in waiting
to Charles II’s mother, Queen Henriette-Marie. From February 1642 until
February 1643 the Duchess was abroad in Holland with the Queen. On
returning to England, the Queen and the Duchess stayed some months in
the north-east of England until they travelled to the Royalist headquarters
in Oxford arriving there mid-July 1643.
Charles II (then Prince of Wales) and his father King Charles I were in
Oxford at this time, arriving there in December 1642. They remained there
throughout 1643, apart from a few days’ absence during the latter part of
August 1643 when they attended the siege of Gloucester., However, they
were back again in Oxford by early September 1643.
Thus, whilst the Charles II and the Duchess of Richmond were apart
during the majority of the time, they were both in Oxford during July and
August 1643, at the latter end of the conception date range!
Whilst not providing proof, this coincidence coupled with La Cloche’s
claim that his mother was Lady Mary Stuart of the Stuart family who
indeed held both the March and Aubigny titles, certainly leaves open the
possibility that La Cloche’s parents might be Charles II and the Duchess of
Richmond. If La Cloche was indeed a hoaxer, it would have been an
incredible feat for him to have known that his “contrived parents,” an
essential part of his alleged hoax, were together in Oxford some twenty-
five years earlier, especially as the “hoax” was planned and perpetrated a
thousand miles away in Rome. The coincidence is all the greater given that
La Cloche apparently could not speak a word of English and as claimed by
the “hoax theorists”, had never set foot in England.
Research by Mulvihill confirms that there was an amorous liaison
between Charles II and the Duchess of Richmond. Mulvihill claims that the
anonymous seventeenth century author Ephelia who penned poetry about
her various lovers was none other than Mary, Duchess of Richmond and
that Clovis (one of her lovers) is identified as Charles II. However, it
should be noted that Mulvihill’s claims on this have yet to be independently
corroborated.
Mary, Duchess of Richmond is not a minor character in Restoration
history, she is well known, being none other than Mall Villiers, elder sister
nd
of George Villiers, the 2 Duke of Buckingham. Mary was the eldest child
of Steenie, the 1st Duke of Buckingham and a favourite of both James I and
Charles I as demonstrated in the following extract from the Dictionary of
National Biography …In her childhood Mall (as she was then commonly
known) moved in favoured court circles. James I, who was her godfather,
allowed her free access to the privy quarters, frequently cuddled her, and
called her his ‘little grandchild’…Lady Mary continued to spend much of
her time at court, and she participated in masques from 1630. On one
occasion she was carried to an unsuspecting Charles I in a hamper,
gaining in consequence the nickname Butterfly or Papillon…On 3 August
1637, bringing with her a dowry of £20,000, Lady Mary was married…to
the king's cousin James Stuart, fourth duke of Lennox (1612–1655 and from
1641 first duke of Richmond). The couple…remained prominent at court…
After the outbreak of the civil war Duchess Mary joined the queen in
Holland, returning early in 1643… On the morning of Charles I's
execution, in January 1649, the king found his father's watch which Lady
Mary had played with as an infant, and as his last bequest had it sent to
her.
In addition to Mary, Duchess of Richmond have her own strong
personal links with the Royal Stuart family, her husband James Stuart, 1st
Duke of Richmond was a blood cousin of the Royal Stuarts, a Privy
Counsellor and one of Charles I’s closest advisers during the English Civil
War. By her marriage to the Duke of Richmond, Mary Stuart became a
Royal Stuart and according to Mulvihill was entitled to use the title of
“princess.”
When La Cloche died in August 1669 he left a posthumous son who
later as an adult claimed that his grandmother’s full name was Mary
Henriette Stuart. Whilst there is no evidence that Mary Stuart, Duchess of
Richmond second name was Henriette, it is quite feasible that she took this
second name as a “confirmation name” in honour of her mistress the
religiously devout Catholic Dowager Queen, Henriette-Marie Stuart, who
the Duchess of Richmond loyally served as Senior Lady in Waiting for over
three decades.
Again, whilst the foregoing does not provide incontrovertible evidence
that Mary, Duchess of Richmond was La Cloche’s mother, there is a
growing body of coincidences that support La Cloche’s claim that his
parents were indeed King Charles II and Mary Stuart, Duchess of
Richmond.
La Cloche claimed that Charles II was unable to publicly acknowledge
him as a natural son because his mother was …of his Majesty’s Royal
Family; whose nearness and greatness of blood was the cause…that his
Majesty would never acknowledge him (publicly) for his son…
Whilst the identification of La Cloche’s mother still requires additional
research, it demonstrates at the very least that Lady Mary Stuart was not
some figment of a Hoaxer’s imagination as claimed by the hoax theorists.
There is some justification for a detailed re-examination of the history of
James De La Cloche, in particular a dossier held at the Vatican Archives in
Rome which reveals that La Cloche came to London on two occasions to
assist Charles II undertake his religious conversion, firstly in November
1668 and again during the weeks prior to Eustache Danger’s arrest in
Calais at the end of July 1669 and removal to Pignerol!

La Cloche’s childhood and coming of age

There are no contemporary documents relating to James de la Cloche

before 1665. The reason for this is quite simple. La Cloche never existed
prior to this date! It was a new alias, created on La Cloche’s arrival in
England in 1665 after having lived abroad under yet another alias. This is
clearly stated in the following certificate (in French), held in the Jesuit
Archive in Rome, signed by Charles II. Nb, The text of the certificate is
translated from the original document held in the Jesuit Archive in Rome. It
is notable that the text “under another name” is omitted in both the Dumas
and Barnes translations upon which many English historians have relied.
This significant omission confirms that the La Cloche was newly created,
James Stuart (La Cloche’s real name) having lived in France and other
countries under yet another unknown alias prior to 1665.
…Charles by the grace of God King of England, France, Scotland and
Ireland, confessing and holding out as our natural son the Sire James
Stuart who, by our order and command after living in France and other
countries under another name until 1665 where we deigned to look after
him. Since the same year being in London at our express wish and purpose,
we have commanded him to live under yet another name which is La
Cloche of Le Bourg in Jersey, of which, for important reasons that
concern the peace of the realm which we have always sought, forbidding
from speaking only after our death. At that time permitting him to present
to Parliament this our declaration that we give him willingly and justly at
his request and in his language for him to take the opportunity to show it to
whoever it may be, in order to have use of it.
At Wthall (Whitehall), 21 September 1665. Written and signed by our hand,
and sealed with our ordinary letter seal without other formality.
Charles, King of England
th
Nb. This certificate has been wrongly attributed to the 27 September
st
1665. It is in fact dated the 21 September (see later).
This document was a certificate of recognition which La Cloche could
present to the English Parliament after Charles II’s demise. Presumably this
was because of the embarrassment that it would have caused Charles II to
admit to being barely 15 years old when La Cloche was born and that La
Cloche’s mother was the high-born Mary Stuart, Duchess of Richmond
who was not only related by marriage to the royal Stuart family but also a
senior Lady in Waiting to Charles II’s mother, the Dowager Queen.
The certificate of recognition was drafted at an important event in La
Cloche’s life, being a few months after La Cloche’s coming of age at
twenty-one, when parental reins are traditionally loosened, and a young
adult is free to go off into the world. Other documents in the Jesuit Archive
(see later) provides some additional background information about La
Cloche’s childhood and the even the newly created alias. La Cloche was the
fictive son of a deceased Preacher from Jersey. There was indeed a preacher
named Etienne La Cloche who resided on Jersey. The hoax theorists have
argued that La Cloche (the hoaxer) must have personal knowledge of this
preacher either because he was born in Jersey or had once lived there. This
claim was founded on the fact that La Cloche could not speak English, he
could only speak French which was widely spoken on Jersey. However, the
hoax theorists conveniently fail to mention that Charles II who contrived
the La Cloche alias and had resided on Jersey for two extended periods
during the English Civil War and the Protectorate. Charles II would have
been well aware of the existence of Etienne La Cloche (a notorious
preacher) and that he died in 1653.
The 1665 certificate also states that La Cloche previously lived in
France which explains why La Cloche could only speak French and not
because he came from Jersey as claimed by hoax supporters. It is worth
noting that James, Duke of Richmond was abroad as a special envoy during
the Duchess of Richmond’s pregnancy with La Cloche. He would realise
that any child conceived during his absence from England could not be his
child and on challenging his wife and made aware of the father’s identity, it
is perfectly feasible that James, Duke of Richmond arranged to have the
illegitimate child raised far from the English Court, a likely solution, being
that the child was sent to the French estate of the duke’s younger brother,
Ludovic Stuart, Lord Aubigny, where he was raised under the name of
James d’Aubigny. This is tentatively suggested because this name forms
part of the longer composite name stated on La Cloche’s 1669 wedding
certificate (see later). If the name James d’Aubigny was indeed his
childhood alias, this would explain why a new alias was needed when
Charles II first recalled his natural son to England in 1665. The new La
Cloche alias would avoid embarrassing questions being asked about James
d’Aubigny’s ties to the Duke and Duchess of Richmond.
There is a second certificate at the Jesuit Archive, again signed by
Charles II (also in French).
Charles by the grace of God, King of England, France, Scotland and
Ireland.
The Sire James Stuart that we have already recognised here before as
our natural son, living under the name of La Cloche, having informed us
that surviving after our death, he might be in fear of his life if he is not
recognised by our Parliament, as well as other difficulties that might occur
in this matter; and accordingly, agree to his request, being pleased to
assign to him and let unto our domain, if such is the good pleasure of our
successor to the crown and of our Parliament, the sum of £500 sterling per
year, the legacy of which he will be permitted the enjoyment only as long as
he resides in London, living in the religion of his fathers and the Anglican
liturgy.
At Wthall, the 1st February 1667.
Written and sealed by our own hand. Charles

Nb. Some translations incorrectly attribute the date of this certificate to

th st
the 7 February 1667. The correct date is the 1 February, as evidenced by
the distinct manner that the characters 1 and 7 are written in the year 1667.
This second certificate was effectively a passport to enable La Cloche to
go abroad and re-enter England after Charles II’s demise, subject to his
Royal successor and the English Parliament permitting this. If La Cloche
returned, the annual £500 pension was subject to a condition so to induce
La Cloche not to convert to the Catholic faith whilst abroad. Possibly
Charles II suspected that La Cloche planned to do this on his return to the
European mainland.
Apart from these two certificates little else is known about La Cloche’s
early years other than what can be gleaned from subsequent letters at the
Jesuit Archive in Rome signed by Charles II. From these it is known that
La Cloche was baptised a Protestant in Paris and raised and educated as a
Calvinist in France and then completed his studies in Holland. There are
also two documents at the Jesuit Archive in La Cloche’s own hand, in both
Latin and French which are well written and composed, demonstrating that
La Cloche received a good level of education.

Hamburg

Having obtained his “passport” from Charles II, La Cloche left England
and by July 1667, he had arrived in Hamburg where on the 29th July 1667,
he undertook his conversion to the Roman Catholic faith. The Act was
certified by Christina, the abdicated Queen of Sweden. This Certificate (in
Latin) was intended to be used only in special circumstances such as when
La Cloche needed to open himself up to a confessor. This certificate like
the previous two certificates, confirms that the La Cloche name was purely
a fictive alias.
…James Stuart who voluntarily conceals himself under the name of de
La Cloche of Le Bourg born in the island of Jersey, is the natural son of
Charles II, king of England, such has his Britannic Majesty himself
affirmed to us under the seal of secrecy. He has renounced the Calvin
religion to which by birth and education he was reared until this day, and
he entered the Holy Roman Church in Hamburg the 29th July 1667. In
evidence of which, contrary to our custom, this declaration is written in our
own hand, in order that James Stuart may, in extraordinary circumstances,
entirely open his conscience to his confessor, and receive from him the
necessary council for the salvation of his soul.
Christine Alexandra….
La Cloche must have joined Queen Christine’s retinue before the
th th
18 /28 April 1667 which was when she left Hamburg and travelled to
Sweden. She did not return to Hamburg until mid-June 1667. If not, then
this left a very narrow window from mid-June to late July 1667 for La
Cloche to present himself to Queen Christina on her return to Hamburg and
prepare for his religious conversion.
From a wrongly attributed letter in the Jesuit Archive it is now known
th th
that La Cloche left Hamburg for Rome on or before 27 August/6
September 1667. This unpublished letter was wrongly attributed to Queen
Catherine de Braganza (Charles II’s wife). The letter is in fact in La
Cloche’s own hand and is clearly a copy of a letter he received from Queen
rd
Christina dated 23 October/2nd November 1667. This copy letter was
th th
drafted on the 9 /19 May 1668 shortly after La Cloche joined the Jesuit
Seminary in Rome. Some parts of La Cloche’s handwriting are difficult to
decipher hence the presence of a some missing words in the translation...
Monsieur, On the just concern that you have of being baptised or not,
baptism is not reputed to be quite necessary for salvation (of the soul) in
the religion that you have left, however I have made the necessary
enquiries on this matter on which you desire to put your mind at ease,
having learnt from his Britannic Majesty that this sacrament was given to
you secretly in Paris by a minister of the religion that you have left.
I forbid you from speaking of your birth to whoever it may be so that
they have no knowledge of it for several reasons and consequences. As for
the secret attestation that I gave you, you may only show this to the
superior of your new church and at confessions in order that they keep the
matter secret, not wanting even xxxxxxx that they ever inform me that they
have any knowledge of it, by these means you will obtain all things
necessary for your salvation. I forbid you to ever speak about this to
anyone else regardless of their status and if you have been unwise to talk
about these things, against my orders to whoever it be, in any manner,
ensure that they keep the matter a secret forever and if they dare to write to
England or enquire to our person, let it be known that I have arms long
enough to reach any place wheresoever to obtain vengeance for your
indiscretion and of xxxxx on them, however I have had the opportunity up
to now to assess your good conduct and I have always believed that you are
an honest man.
A week ago I received the good news that you had arrived safely in
Rome and that the Cardinals Azzolini and Barberini have willingly received
you, these gentlemen will serve you in all things necessary for your upkeep
until the time when I am in Rome or when xxxxxx I will take particular care
of you, assisting you and knowing always at the same xxxxx as if I had no
knowledge at all of your birth for important reasons that xxxxxx I will
provide for your upkeep as a gentleman of (high) birth who is received into
the Catholic Church.
2nd November 1667.
PS Do not be at all conceited that I write to you sometimes and try for
your good xxxxxx to correspond with the good grace that God has given
you.

Addendum:
This is the copy of a letter of the Queen that I have copied word for word,
retaining the original that I hold for my consolation together with other
letters of the King of England that I am ready to show when there is a
need to do so.
Jacques Stuart named de La Cloche from Le Bourg, Jersey, noviciate of the
Society of Jesus, Saint Andrew, this 19th May 1668

There is no doubt that this letter is from Queen Christina of Sweden and
not Queen Catherine of Braganza. Catherine was not planning to go to
Rome, whilst Christina planned to return there before Easter 1668.
Catherine did not provide a secret attestation to La Cloche’s religious
conversion, Christina did. Catherine did not personally know Cardinals
Azzolini and Barberini, they were both personally known to Christina.
The purpose of Queen Catherine’s letter was to provide evidence that
La Cloche had been baptised, this being a pre-requisite for entry into a
Catholic seminary. This copy of the letter (in La Cloche’s hand) is dated the
19th May 1668, about five weeks after La Cloche’s entered the Jesuit
Seminary. La Cloche states that he has retained the original and likely
prepared the copy to give to the Jesuits for their retention as a record of his
baptism.
Besides revealing previously unknown information about La Cloche’s
movements in the latter part of 1668, the copy letter is also of value
because it is in La Cloche’s own hand and provides an extensive
handwriting sample for comparison purposes. Proof that the letter is indeed
in La Cloche’s hand is confirmed by comparing it with another letter
written by La Cloche (dated the 29th October 1668), also held at the Jesuit
Archive.

Rome

Prior to the correct attribution of the Queen Christina letter, it was

assumed that La Cloche arrived in Rome shortly before he joined the Jesuit
Seminary in April 1668.
From internal evidence in the letter, it is now known that La Cloche
rd
arrived in Rome several some months earlier. The letter is dated 23
October/2nd November 1667 and the Queen states that she had been
informed a week earlier of La Cloche’s safe arrival in Rome. The normal
travel time between Hamburg and Rome was 25 days (based on the
“ordinary” postal service which Queen Christina used to send her letters to
Cardinal Azzolini ). Thus, La Cloche left Hamburg for Rome at least 57
days before the date of the letter (i.e. 25 day travel time from Hamburg to
Rome plus another 25 days for a letter informing of his safe arrival to be
sent back to Hamburg, plus an extra seven days as mentioned in the letter).
th th
Thus, La Cloche left Hamburg on or before the 27 August/6 September
 st st
1667 and arrived in Rome on or before the 21 September/1 October 1667.
It is notable that these dates agree with Queen Christina’s intended
travel plans as revealed in her separate correspondence to Cardinal
Azzolini. Queen Christina had originally planned to leave Hamburg for
Rome on the 27th August 1667. However, her departure was put on hold at
the last moment, being obliged to remain in Hamburg to tend to various
personal matters concerning Sweden and Poland. It is likely that as part of
this last-minute change of plan, Queen Christina arranged for La Cloche to
travel ahead to Rome taking with him a letter of introduction to Cardinal
Azzolini.
Queen Christina’s letter to La Cloche even refers to her revised plan to
travel to Rome in time for the Easter celebrations of 1668 which agrees
with the Queen’s amended travel plans as communicated in her letters to
Cardinal Azzolini. Christina was originally expected to arrive in Rome in
November 1667, but this was deferred until Easter 1668, then deferred yet
again due to illness, delaying Queen Christina’s arrival in Rome to
November 1668.
The “hoax theorists” claimed that La Cloche was anxious to avoid being
confronted by Queen Christina, because this would expose him as a hoaxer,
But, as far as everyone in Rome was concerned Queen’s Christina’s return
to Rome was continually expected and only deferred at the last moment.
Yet during all this time La Cloche was not perturbed by the Queen’s
imminent arrival in Rome. It is also difficult to envisage what type of scam
La Cloche (the hoaxer) planned to perpetrate amongst the Jesuits if the
imminent arrival of Queen Christina would have exposed him.
La Cloche’s attestation at the bottom of the Queen’s Christina’s copy
letter, although partly cited by Washington, omits the following significant
text below in bold …retaining the original that I hold for my consolation
together with other letters of the King of England which I am ready to
show when there is need to do so… These other letters are almost certainly
the two certificates of “recognition and passport” issued by Charles II in
1665 and 1667. Incidentally the letter includes a prayer in Latin added in
La Cloche’s hand …Bless you Lord for recalling the degree of my sins,
awaken in me the kind holiness of this religious house, a sturdy example in
which is seen a perfect reflection that only religion might emulate…
Queen Christine’s letter intriguingly reveals that on his arrival in Rome
La Cloche was assisted by Cardinals Azzolini and Barberini. Azzolini was
a friend and financial advisor to Queen Christina. They had a close platonic
relationship and corresponded with each other most weeks. Barberini was
head of the College of Cardinals with special responsibility for Catholic
affairs in Protestant Britain. Barberini was well known to Queen Christine,
he would personally greet and escort her into Rome when she finally
returned there in November 1668.
Cardinal Barberini’s special responsibility for Catholic affairs in
England would have made him the most appropriate person to whom
Azzolini would have referred La Cloche when he arrived in Rome. It is
likely that Barberini in turn provided La Cloche with an introduction to
Father Oliva, the Father General of the Jesuit Seminary in Rome. The link
between La Cloche and Cardinal Barberini is confirmed in two more letters
written by La Cloche to Barberini, when he was in Naples in April 1669.
These letters were unearthed by Tarantino in the Barberini archive (see
later) and hopefully other documents relating to La Cloche might one day
come to light amongst the Azzolini and Barberini archives.
st th
On the 1 /11 April 1668 La Cloche was accepted into the Jesuit
Seminary. The entry book shows that on arrival La Cloche’s possessions
were basic and not of any great wealth …James de La Cloche, from the isle
of Jersey, a possession of the King of England, aged 24, came to S. Andrea,
April 11th, 1668. He brought with him a hat; a collar and clerical dress of
silk; a doublet and breeches of black material; a vest of yellow skin; a
leather sword-belt of musk colour; a pair of white silk stockings; two shirts
and a waistcoat; a pair of drawers and stockings of thread; three
handkerchiefs and a white linen cap; two pairs of boots; three collars;
three pairs of cuffs; a pair of gloves, a hair brush; a pair of riding boots;
two pairs of thread buttons to fasten the collar...

James De La Cloche, the eldest natural son of Charles II,

or the greatest hoaxer of the seventeenth century

The main champion that La Cloche was a hoaxer was the historian,
Lingard. In 1842 he examined transcripts of the La Cloche dossier supplied
by the Jesuit Archive. He dismissed them as forgeries without any forensic
examination whatsoever, his conclusions being based mainly on his
expectation that La Cloche’s certificate of recognition and passport to
return to England, should be to the standard of a document to which the
Great Seal was affixed. Many historians thereafter have unquestioningly
relied on Lingard’s analysis and findings. It is well worthwhile to firstly re-
examine Lingard’s objections: He wrote …In the letters attributed to
Charles II, mention is made at least half a dozen times of the Queen-
Mother Henriette-Marie. She is said to be living in London in Somerset
House for Jacques (de La Cloche) on his arrival in England he is to reveal
himself to the Queen Regnant, Catherine of Braganza when she is
preparing to visit the Queen-Mother (Henriette-Marie) at Somerset House.
Charles is made to write this on the 3rd and 29th August 1668. Now his
mother left Somerset House in the 29th June 1665; was attended by her two
sons Charles II and James, Duke of York as far as the (buoy of the) Nore;
sailed to France and remained there until August 1669 when she died…
Lingard’s assertions here are inexact. None of Charles II’s letters
specifically state that the Queen-Mother was living at Somerset House.
This location is only mentioned once and in a different context …Charles
is unable to use the Priests at the Royal Catholic chapels of Saint James
and Somerset House… The vast majority of references to the Queen-
Mother relate simply to either her knowledge of La Cloche’s existence or
Charles II having consulted her along with Charles II’s wife Queen
Catherine de Braganza (the Queens), …His son is unknown to others apart
from the Queens …if he prefers to come without being made a Priest
Charles could do the same by means of Charles II’s mother the Dowager
Queen or the reigning Queen who have at their disposal Bishops…The
Queens are anxious to see La Cloche…Charles has advised them (the
Queens) of La Cloche’s conversion to the Roman Faith…The Queens
inform that they will not prevent La Cloche from living amongst the (Jesuit)
Society…This is what the Queens have advised…Pray to god for Charles,
the Queens and the Kingdoms…having taken counsel with the Queens,
Charles has decided…This is what Charles has decided upon together with
the Queens…Charles’s has taken advice from the Queens… Charles will
arrange via the Queens to have him made secretly a Priest… The Queens
have warned and advised Charles not to be hasty… Furthermore, La
Cloche as soon as he sets foot in the Palace he is not to have conversation
with anyone other than Charles and the Queens… the Queens will preach
to him more than would any spiritual director…This is how in fact the
Queen-Mother and the reigning Queen judge everything to be…
Furthermore the Queens have commanded that their Priests say a number
of masses…
In these numerous references to Queen Catherine and the Queen-
Mother (the Queens) there is no reference that she is living in Somerset
House. The only instance where it could be construed that Charles II had
stated that the Queen-Mother was living at Somerset House is where La
Cloche is instructed to …present himself to the Queen Consort (Catherine
de Braganza), either when she is at mass in St James Palace or when she
goes to visit the queen our dear and honoured mother…
There is a good reason why Charles II made numerous references to
“the Queens” (Queen Catherine and the Dowager Queen Henriette-Marie).
They were both Catholics who had played a role during the stalled attempt
at Charles II’s religious conversion in 1663, by providing letters of
introduction for Charles II’s secret envoy. It is thus quite reasonable that
Charles II mentioned the Queens in his 1668 letters to the Jesuits in order to
convey an air of continuity between the previous 1663 negotiation with
Rome and the renewed contact with Rome in 1668.
It is not known whether Charles II consulted with the Queen-Mother
regarding La Cloche or not. She was in France during 1668 and the
Ordinary Post typically took 8 to 10 days for a return communication
between London and the Paris region (where the Queen-Mother was then
residing). Nevertheless, the Queen-Mother had not gone to France with the
intention of permanently absenting herself from England. She
“temporarily” left London during the plague in 1665 and should she ever
need any other excuse, the official reason given was a need to take the
waters at Bourbon to cure her consumption. The Queen-Mother’s absence
was temporary and she planned to return to England before the winter of
the following year as recorded by the diarist Samuel Pepys …So home,
calling at Somerset House, where all are packing up too, the Queen-Mother
setting out for France this day to drink Bourbon waters this year, she being
in a consumption; and intends not to come till winter come twelve
months…
The Queen-Mother remained in France beyond her anticipated return
date due to a combination of factors including, France siding with the
Dutch Republic during the second Anglo-Dutch war, a significant reduction
in her living allowance by Charles II, then the pregnancy of Madame (her
daughter) and finally her failing health which ultimately resulted in her
death in September 1669.
During her absence from England Charles II reassured the Queen-
Mother that her chapel at Somerset House would remain in use and that
eight Capuchins could remain there pending her return. Somerset House
chapel whilst closed to the public after 1665, it remained in use and it was
planned to reopen the it again to the public in the years 1668/69.
Whilst Lingard’s point that Queen Catherine could not visit the Queen-
Mother (other than by travelling abroad to France) is valid, even here there
is an explanation. In August 1668 Charles II had anticipated that by the
time La Cloche arrived in England later in 1668 the Queen-Mother would
have by then returned to England and be able to receive visits from Queen
Catherine.
Lingard’s other objections in the main relate to his expectation of what a
royal certificate should contain if it had been formally issued under the
Great Seal. Again each objection is worthy of reassessment.

…The letters are said to be in Charles’s handwriting, but Charles was

not the writer of the two certificates. If he had been, he would have placed
the seal and signature at the top and not at the bottom…
A cursory review of several contemporary documents reveal that
Charles II signed the top of official documents such as warrants, orders,
charters, etc. These were drafted by a court official, e.g. a Secretary of
State, or the keeper of the Privy or Great Seals. However, on personal
documents (including the two La Cloche certificates) Charles II placed his
signature at the end of the document. With regards to the position of the
Privy or Great seals, on formal documents they were commonly located at
the top of the first page, again however, on personal documents drafted by
Charles II where he used his personal signet ring seal, this was placed
adjacent to his signature at the end of the document or was used to
physically seal the letter.

…He (Charles II) would have written roy d’Angleterre and not
Angletterre…
French was not Charles II’s first language and in any case such spelling
variants were widespread during at this time even amongst educated people
(both English and French). Furthermore the double “t” spelling variant was
not at all uncommon in seventeenth century French (e.g. dites/dittes,
autre/auttre, etc.)

…he would have known his own title, that Scotland came before France
and not after it, that he was roy d’Irlande and not D’Hybernie and that he
was defenseur de la foi which in no case whatever was omitted…
Charles II would have been quite aware of the ordering of his Kingdoms
in the English language. However, the two certificates were drafted in
French and the order used is consistent with the format employed by
Charles II’s mother, the Dowager Queen Henriette Marie, who was French.
Her formal title was Queen Henriette Marie of England, France,
Scotland & Ireland (see sample below in Latin). It is feasible that Charles
when writing in French, out of parental respect, adopted his Mother’s
French format.

There are even examples in English of a similar word ordering for

Charles I, with France placed between England and Scotland, as in the two
examples below:

…1689 This is the final Concord made in the Court of the Lord the King
at Westminster on Easter day to the fifteenth day in the year of the reign of
James King of England, France, Scotland, Ireland…

Furthermore, just to confound matters, the Stuart kings had been

rebranding themselves as kings of Great Britain, France and Ireland (as also
seen on some contemporary seals and coins). This style was notably used
by La Cloche just a year later in his last will and testament which also
supports the view that La Cloche had no part in preparing Charles II’s
certificates and letters.
As regards, the use of the word Hybernia, this is an alternative Franco-
Latin name for Irlande. Lingard’s criticism on this point might be
compared to questioning why the French use Londres, Thamise,
Angleterre, etc. instead of the standard English spellings.

……and that he was defenseur de la foi which in no case whatever was

omitted…
 Whilst the expression Fidei Defensor or F D was certainly included in
official Royal documents drafted by government officers (Charters, Orders
in Council, etc.), it was perfectly normal for it to be omitted from Charles
II’s, personal correspondence, which were simply signed “Charles” or an
elaborate initial “C” and sealed with his Private Signet Ring. One might
equally argue that as the title Fidei Defensor had been awarded to Henry
VIII for his services to the Roman Catholic Church prior to the
Reformation, Charles II’s inability to practice freely as a Roman Catholic,
left him morally unable to add F D in correspondence with Rome. Lingard
is also being particularly pedantic to argue this, especially as a cursory
examination reveals that even the coinage of the realm for this period
omitted Fidei Defensor (F.D.) It was not formally introduced on coins until
1714.

…He (Charles II) would not have said cacheté du cachet ordinaire
(there was none such) but scellé de notre sceau privé…
Lingard’s criticism here is confusing at several levels. There were three
royal seals, the King’s Private Signet Ring seal (which is relevant here), the
Privy Seal, and the Great Seal, the latter two seals were held by official
officers of the Court. The Privy seal was generally used for pre-approval
purposes (warrants, etc.) If Charles II had arranged for the Privy Seal or the
Great Seal to be affixed to the two certificates this would have alerted
courtiers to La Cloche’s existence. To avoid this Charles II used his Private
Signet Ring Seal on the two certificates.

Lingard also incorrectly argued that the term “Scellé de notre sceau
privé” should have been used, however this means “sealed by our Privy
Seal” which was not used to seal the two certificates. Furthermore, the
French word “cachet” is another French word that equally means seal. It is
a valid alternative to the word “Sceau” that Lingard unreasonably expected.
In France under the Ancient Regime, the expression cachet was in common
use, e.g. A lettre de cachet was a “sealed” letter used to transmit an order of
the King (often authorising imprisonment without trial). The words
Cacheter and cacheté (to seal and sealed) are the corresponding infinitive
and past participle of the noun cachet.

…he (Charles II) would not have added sans autre façon (secretariat),
for on such occasions no secretary signed… “Sans autre façon” simply
means “without other means” and was used to mean just that, i.e. the two
certificates were sealed solely with Charles II’s Private Signet Ring Seal
without recourse to any other formal process such as affixing the Privy Seal
or the Great Seal. Whilst the expression “sans autre façon” may have been
employed by Royal officials, it is incorrect to then claim that its use was
exclusively reserved for their use alone.

…and he (Charles II) would not have dated the first birth certificate
st
(that of 27th (Recte 21 ) September 1665) from “Whitehall”, since at that
date the court was at Oxford on account of the plague...
Lingard is quite correct here. Charles II was not at Whitehall at the time
th
of the first certificate. Charles II was at St. Giles, Oxford from the 11
September 1665 (or earlier) when he wrote to his sister Madame. Pepys
th
Diary also informs us that Charles II was still in Oxford on the 25
September.
It has been argued by other writers that given the certificate was
intended to be used after Charles II’s demise, the locum of “Whitehall” was
stated on the document rather than a relatively the less known location of
“St. Giles”, in order to avoid any future unnecessary difficulties. Other
writers have alternatively argued that this error could have even have been
purposely added (along with any other discrepancies) to provide a means of
plausible deniability should it ever be needed.
In conclusion, Lingard’s conclusions are based on questionable findings
and carried out without any forensic analysis of the Vatican documents. His
objections are in the main based on an unwarranted expectation that the two
certificates should be to the standard of a royal document to which the
Great Seal or Privy Seal was affixed. Some of Lingard’s objections are
considered to be ill-founded and certainly do not provide irrefutable
evidence that the La Cloche documents are forgeries.
However Lingard did correctly identify that the Queen-Mother was not
in England and that the locum stated on the 1665 certificate of recognition
was incorrect which does raise some questions about the authenticity of the
certificates and letters, albeit that plausible explanations to explain these
inconsistencies.
Whether or not the La Cloche letters and certificates are genuine is a
question of fact. Forensic investigative methods which were previously
unavailable now exist and at present (late 2019), no detailed forensic
analysis or investigation has been carried out on the La Cloche documents.
It should be pointed out that the handwriting of Charles II’s two
certificates appears to be in a different hand to the letters Charles II
allegedly sent to the Father General, however it is possible that Arundell or
Bellings (who both knew about the Grand Design), penned these
documents on behalf of Charles II, who merely signed them, thus their
handwritings would also need to be compared.
Baldwin rightly concluded that …if a reliable process of testing could
be devised that would show the veracity or otherwise of these documents, it
would be of the greatest value... As Baldwin suggests, besides a detailed
analysis of the handwriting, various other forensic tests could be devised
including examination of the seals, paper type, watermarks, etc. No doubt
future research and investigations will one day resolve this outstanding
seventeenth century enigma.
Postscript
In order to concentrate on the actual history of the Man in the Iron Mask
and keep this work to a readable size, numerous theories on the identity of
the Man in the Iron Mask which have long since been disproved or rejected
as works of fanciful fiction have not been covered. Likewise the history of
the development of the legend of the Man in the Iron Mask over the
centuries has been excluded. These alone would require another volume
and are already amply covered in existing works including The Man
Behind The Iron Mask by John Noone (in English) and Le Masque de Fer
by Jean-Christian Petitfils (in French).
The identity of the Man in the Iron Mask as revealed in this work is the
result of the author’s personal research and opinion. There are other
relatively recent works on the same subject where a different solution to the
mystery is provided including J-C Petitfils, P Sonnino, J Noone, M Vergé-
Franceschi and C Dabos, plus a new work yet to be published in 2021 by J
Wilkinson.
The candidacy of Martin as the Man in the Iron Mask (as exposed in
this Cold Case Review) is the most realistic solution put forward to solve
this enduring mystery.
Most researchers of this three hundred and fifty year old enigma usually
end by encouraging others to keep searching through the numerous
archives to try and unearth new evidence and this author makes no
exception to this rule. Hopefully one day somebody will discover amongst
the mass of archive material still to be explored, new evidence that will
irrefutably confirm that Martin was the Man in the Iron Mask and reveal
the history of James De La Cloche.

6
Notes, Sources and Bibliography

Sources and Bibliography

Sources and translations:

Most of the French language source documents have previously been

published in diverse works over the past centuries. As there is a plethora of
documents relating to this history, only the main sources are listed below.
The majority of translations from French to English have been made by
the author who is solely responsible for any errors.

The Man in the Iron Mask

RAVAISSON (François), Archives de la Bastille, 16 volumes
PETITFILS (Jean-Christian), La Bastille
PETITFILS (Jean-Christian), Fouquet
PETITFILS (Jean-Christian) Lauzun
PETITFILS (Jean-Christian), L’Homme au masque de fer
NOONE (John), The Man behind the Iron Mask
SONNINO (Paul), On the Trail of the Iron Mask: The Candidacy of Claude
Imbert
SONNINO (Paul), The Search for the Man in the Iron Mask
FUNCK-BRENTANO (Frantz), Les Lettres de cachet à Paris, étude suivie
d’une liste des prisonniers de la Bastille (1659-1789)
Du Junca, Prison Entry Diary, La Bastille
R A C de Renneville, The French Inquisition, Tomes 1 to 5
DELORT (Joseph), L’Homme au masque de fer,
DELORT (Joseph), Histoire de la détention des philosophes
ELLIS (George Agar), The History of the State Prisoner Commonly Called
the Iron Mask.
LANG (Andrew), The Valet’s Tragedy and Other Studies
LACROIX Paul, L’Homme au masque de fer
IUNG (Théodore), La Vérité sur le Masque de fer
PAGNOL (Marcel), Le Masque de Fer
LOISELEUR (Jules), Trois énigmes historiques.
TOPIN (Marius), L’Homme au masque de fer
LAIR (Jules), Nicolas Fouquet
BARNES (Mgr Arthur Stapylton), The Man of the Mask,
LALOY (Emile), Enigmes du Grand Siècle
LALOY (Emile), Le Masque de fer
DUVIVIER (Maurice), Le Masque de fer
FUNCK-BRENTANO (Frantz), « L’Homme au masque de velours noir dit
le Masque de fer, Revue historique
MONGRÉDIEN (Georges), Le Masque de fer
MAST (Marie-Madeleine), Le Masque de fer
Claude Dabos, Le Masque de Fer Une Enquete historique (website)
Savine Albert, Lauzun
GRIFFET (R.P. Henri), Traité des différentes sortes de preuves

The Roux Affair

RABINEL (Aimé-Daniel), La Tragique Aventure de Roux de Marcilly
Paul Sonnino, On the trail of the Man in the Iron Mask
Andrew Lang, The valet’s master
Historical Manuscripts Commission, Montague-Arlington letters

La Cloche
Florent Dumas Charles II et Jacques Stuart, Etdues religeuses, Vol V et VI
Boero, La Civittica Catollicca series 5 Vol V and VII
Mezieres Brady, Anglo-Roman papers
Acton, Secret History of Charles II Lord Action H&R Review
Cust, E Some Account of the Stuarts of Aubigny, in France
A letter published by Vincenzo Armanni in 1674
CSP Venetian, La Cloche’s last will and testament
Lang A, History of James de La Cloche including extracts of news letters
sent from Rome to England by the English agent, Joseph Kent.
Two “gaol letters” written by La Cloche in April 1669 discovered by
Giovanni Tarantino in the Barberini Archive in Rome.
The “La Cloche Dossier” held at the Society of Jesuit (SJR) archive in
Rome, consisting of various reports, letters and certificates including:
The mathematically erroneous promissory note for £28,000 from Charles II
to the Jesuits (mentioned in Pagnol’s Le Secret du Masque de Fer).
nd
A copy of a letter in La Cloche’s hand. The original is dated 2 November
1667 but is miscataloged as a letter from Queen Catherine of Braganza to
La Cloche when it is in fact an inedited copy of a letter from Queen
Christine of Sweden to La Cloche.
th
An inedited letter from La Cloche dated Livorno, 29 October 1668, being
dated two weeks after it was previously assumed that La Cloche had left
Italy for England.
Bildt Cardinal Christine de Suède et le cardinal Azzolino :lettres inédites
(1666-1668)
G.S.L. Washington, King Charles II’s Jesuit Son
Corp, Edward JAMES III AND HIS NEAPOLITAN COUSIN
Baldwin, David John Peter The politico-religious usage of the queen's
chapel, 1623-1688
Stewart, A. Francis The Neapolitan Stuarts
Giovanni Tarantino, Jacques de La Cloche: Un Prétendant Stuart au XVIIe
siècle

The Secret Treaty of Dover and

Franco-English diplomatic correspondence

HARTMANN (Cyril Hugues), Charles II and Madame

HARTMANN (Cyril Hugues), The King my Brother
HARTMANN (Cyril Hugues), Clifford of the Cabal
HUTTON (Ronald), The Making of the Secret Treaty of Dover, 1668-1670,
The Historical Journal 1986
SONNINO (Paul), Louis XIV and the Origins of the Dutch War
Baschet, The Paris Transcripts
Mignet, Negotiations Relatives a la Succession d’Espagne, Tomes 1 to 4
Feiling K Madame’s letter dated September 1668/1669
Edith Carey, The Channel Islands
Ruth Norrington, My Dearest Minette

Diverse
A Marshall, Intelligence and Espionage in the Reign of Charles II.
Barbour Violet, Henry Bennet Earl of Arlington
Paul Sonnino, Louis XIV and The Origins of the Dutch War
CSP Domestic, Foreign and Venetian
The Bulstrode Papers
Pepys’s Diaries (Latham/Matthews edition)
MONTPENSIER (Anne Marie Louise d’Orléans), Mémoires
SAINT-SIMON (Louis de Rouvroy, duc de), Mémoires,
CONSTANTIN DE RENNEVILLE, L’Inquisition françoise, in 5 volumes
Calendar of State Papers, Domestic
Calendar of State Papers, Foreign (France)