Talk:Le secret du Masque de Fer

Charles II’s illegitimate son

The theory identifying James de la Cloche as Louis XIV’s twin brother excludes any filiation with Charles II for two reasons: by locating James’s birth at the time of Louis XIV’s, i.e. on 5 September 1638, he would only be eight years younger than Charles II, born in 1630.

James, who arrived in Jersey in 1644 without knowing his identity or that of his parents, most probably did not know his own date of birth. However it can be noticed that when Charles II arrived in Jersey in 1646 (he was then 16 and not yet King), James, born in 1638 and already on the Island, was 8 years old. It may then be supposed that James, at the age of 8, saw Charles II at the Carteret’s house in Jersey for approximately two years, before Charles II’s departure to La Haye in 1648.

Could he then later think that he was Charles II’s son? This would mean that not only did he not know Charles II’s exact date of birth either, but also overestimated the latter’s age, whilst they had been living close to each other on Jersey island, James being mature enough to figure out if Charles II could be his father.

In addition to the rumour which spread around Jersey, James may well have acquired his own conviction by seeing the portait of Charles II by Peter Lely, offered by the Queen of England to Sir Carteret, in which Marcel Pagnol sees a striking resemblance with Louis XIV (thus his supposed twin brother), Charles II’s first cousin.

That resemblance can be disputed, even if M.Pagnol does not specify with which portrait of Louis XIV he compares that of Charles II. M.Pagnol has access to documents submitted by James in which he was declared as Charles II’s illegitimate son. Supposing that the letters from Charles II to the Jesuit Father were false, written by James himself, it is thus understood that James claimed to be Charles II’s illegitimate son in order to enter the Institute of Jesuit novices, as Father Oliva believed. It may however be disputed that James actually believed in this. According to M.Pagnol, James, who sincerely thought he was Charles II’s son, fought to be recognized as such and thus acquire the title of Duke. He approached the Jesuits in order to be able to convert Charles II, thus making him indebted to him. When he hurried his departure from the Jesuit Institute, he thus renounced his noviciate and cancelled his plan to convert Charles II. He then figured out another way to make him indebted, and swindle the Jesuits’ money.

Assuming that James sincerely believed to be Charles II’s son, he would have, when renouncing his noviciate, swindled a large amount of money out of the Jesuits in order to “buy” Charles II’s acknowledgment, which would make him a Duke.

James probably anticipated another refusal from Charles II and amassed a small secret fortune. Indeed he probably did not plan to return to the Carteret’s who look unfavourably his obstinacy after Charles II did not acknowledge him as his son. Pagnol does not mention James’ relationship with the Carteret after he left Jersey. They were probably unaware that he got into the Jesuit Institute by pretending to be Charles II’s son.

Being assumed that James pretended to be Charles II’s son knowing perfectly well it was certainly not true, one may then wonder about his motivations. It should not be assumed that he kept trying desperately to get from Charles an irrelevant dukedom. Neither an isolated villainous and deliberate act should be assumed, since James met Charles II after leaving the Jesuit Institute. He did not just take the money and run away. He doubtless had other projects and ambitions in mind, in particular Roux de Marcilly’s conspiracy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Treflon (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

--Treflon (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Roux de Marcilly’s conspiracy

The document that Marcel Pagnol puts forward locates an encounter between James and Charles II at the beginning of 1669, a time when Charles II is thought to have redirected James towards Roux de Marcilly after having told him of his real identity. James’s role in the conspiracy is fundamental: he aspired to the throne which was legally due to him, thus having French and foreign popular support on his side.

Yet at the beginning of 1669, it was already quite a long time since Roux de Marcilly had been denounced (June 1668). He was on the run and took refuge in Switzerland in February 1669. James is thus thought to have joined the conspirators quite late as a protagonist.

Besides, Pagnol gives very little information about James’s younger years, between his adolescence in Jersey and his departure for Rome. When James Scott, Charles II’s son, was made Duke of Monmouth in 1663, James was 25. He probably did not wait five years to appear. He approached King Charles II, doubtless through the Carterets.

Charles II told him he was not his father, which James would realise if he inquired about Charles II’s age. James thus continues to question the Carterets who leave it up to Charles II. The latter heard from his mother a royal secret: he shall know about the existence of Louis XIV’s twin brother, which could have severe consequences for his cousin’s kingdom.

Charles II, questioned by James and certainly by the Carterets, would have revealed to James the secret of his birth, and therefore his identity, between 1664 and the beginning of 1668. The Carterets perhaps learned the secret too.

Knowing this, James prepared a conspiracy alongside Roux de Marcilly, which, in addition to bringing the throne back to its legitimate heir, would unify the Protestant cause on the European scene. Indeed, having lived in the Netherlands (Pagnol does not refer to this), he could take charge of coordination with the United Provinces quoted in the letter denouncing Roux de Marcilly.

James requested the decisive collaboration of Charles II, as some French provinces were promised to England in the event of Louis XIV’s fall. Charles II then expressed his reluctance, due to the pension paid to him by his cousin. The lack of cooperation from England was also evoked in the letter denouncing Roux de Marcilly.

After that James presented himself at the Institute of Jesuit novices in Rome, pretending to be Charles II’s illegitimate son, with the fake letters to support his claims. Thus, when made a Catholic priest, he would be able to convert Charles II, who would then be indebted to him.

But the arrival of Catherine of Sweden in Rome upset his plans. Fearing of being exposed, he hurried to depart from Rome but profited from his short stay (less than eight months) by swindling a big sum of money from the Jesuits. This money may be used to buy the cooperation of Charles II, who was dependent on the allowance paid by Louis XIV. James therefore left the Institute before the end of his novitiate, but now counted on Henrietta of England to have him ordained as a Catholic priest.

It should also be noticed that James hurried his departure from the Jesuit Institute in late 1668, i.e. between the denunciation of Roux de Marcilly and his kidnapping in Switzerland. He would then have returned to London, carrying the pile of money swindled out of the Jesuit Institute, in order to approach King Charles II faster, while the conspiracy appeared seriously compromised by Roux’s kidnapping. His departure from the Institute might then have been admittedly precipitated by Christine of Sweden’s visit (who was much likely to discover his deception), but especially by Roux’s kidnapping.

When Henrietta of England sent him back to Charles II, the latter sticked to his wait and see position as for any concrete role in Roux de Marcilly’s conspiracy. James then secretly settled in London, with the large sum of money swindled from the Jesuits.

It should also be noticed that when back from Rome, James settles in London, where Roux de Marcilly was based before being denounced and running away to Switzerland… Pagnol does not provided anything establishing the accurate date of his departure from Jersey Isle or assume a settlement in London besides Roux before going to Rome.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Treflon (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

“Dauger”, Fouquet’s valet

On the other hand, M.Pagnol himself, with honesty and objectivity, highlights some objections to his own theory.

Fouquet eliminated?

The prisoner is thought to have worn the mask only in Sainte-Marguerite and the Bastille, not in Pignerol when together with Fouquet. Seeing him masked, Fouquet would have been even more intrigued and curious. This being, it can reasonably be assumed that if Fouquet saw Dauger, he would most certainly have recognized him and noticed the resemblance with Louis XIV.

Did the King agree to this revelation? This is very possible, since with Fouquet having been sentenced to death, what he knew was ultimately of no importance. M.Pagnol considers this answer to be “weak”. Indeed, considering the chronology concerning Fouquet’s imprisonment: At the beginning of 1675, in view of the physical and mental health of the prisoner, who was dangerously in decline, Louis XIV allowed him the company of Fouquet (by officially appointing him as his valet), knowing perfectly well that Fouquet would recognize him and therefore realise his real identity. At the end of 1678, Louvois, in a very clever and hypocritical manner, questioned Fouquet as to what he knew about “Dauger”. Fouquet fell into the trap and died of poisoning a little more than a year later (March 1680).

Could Louis XIV have planned Fouquet’s murder back in 1675, i.e. five years before his death?

It would rather seem that, almost four years after having granted the prisoner Fouquet’s company, Louis XIV realised he had made a serious mistake and became rather panic stricken. Learning that, as he feared, Fouquet knew the secret which was so dangerous to the Kingdom, he decided to save his brother’s life at the expense of Fouquet’s and ordered the execution of the latter, notably concealed by the previous announcement of an imminent release.

Lauzun released

Being assumed that Louis XIV allowed “Dauger” to meet Fouquet knowing perfectly well that he would recognise him, one may then wonder why the encounter with Fouquet was permitted whereas the encounter with Lauzun was so dreaded and strictly forbidden.

Lauzun was imprisoned at the beginning of 1671 in Pignerol as was preparing to marry Mademoiselle, Louis XIV’s first cousin. He was therefore a close friend of the royal family, much more likely than Fouquet to recognise the King’s twin brother. Fouquet, Superintendent of Finances, was most certainly an associate of the King. Was Louis XIV more afraid of Lauzun’s indiscretion?

It should also be noticed that Lauzun, to whom Fouquet is likely to have revealed the secret of “Dauger” during intimate nocturnal conversations, was spared and released in 1681. M.Pagnol seems uncertain of what he knew (or did not know).

It can be assumed that Lauzun was released despite the fact that Louvois (and therefore Louis XIV) were perfectly aware that he knew the famous prisoner’s identity. M.Pagnol specifies that he was under very close surveillance when released: he was required to stay in the provinces under the custody of a certain M. de Maupertuis, captain of the musketeers and Saint-Mars’s friend, who had railings put into the windows of his bedroom.

Furthermore, the “leniency” of Louis XIV (and thus a certain injustice towards Fouquet who is thought to have been killed because he knew) may be explained by Lauzun’s high status at the Court. M.Pagnol gives a quotation whose origin is not clearly specified (it is thought to be from Saint-Simon’s wife, daughter of the Marshall of Lorges): “The brother-in-law [of Saint-Simon: Lauzun] knew all the secrets, being in charge of the mission based on the most intimate trust, that of the captain of the guards. The King and his safety were in his hands…”

Fears of an attack (to free the prisoner)

M.Pagnol also wonders about the attitude of the so-called accomplices abroad after the denunciation of Roux de Marcilly's conspiracy and the imprisonment of “Dauger”.

He points out, for instance, that if Saint-Mars had really intercepted a message in Exiles which some conspirators had tried to transmit to the prisoner with a rigged candle, Saint-Mars could have answered the message and organised a false escape in order to set a trap for its senders.

M.Pagnol simply concludes that he has not found any continuation to this episode of the rigged candle. Maybe, rather than risking the revival of international tensions following the illegal kidnapping of Roux de Marcilly, Louis XIV preferred to discreetly transfer the prisoner to the most isolated fortress on the Islands of Sainte-Marguerite.

This being, it can be assumed that the prisoner’s old accomplices knew he was Louis XIV’s twin brother. In that case, why did they not denounce Louis XIV in print as a usurper, and the torturer of his own brother? They most probably feared that Louis XIV would have reacted by killing the prisoner.

Why did these accomplices not speak up after the prisoner’s death? Those who knew were doubtless gone too. Furthermore, a plot against the King was apparently no longer on the agenda, six years after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the massive exodus of Protestants… M.Pagnol admits that this answer is not particularly convincing.

Notes

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Treflon (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)