Placing a value on the French monument removed by the Spanish and lost at Sea.

[ARC]

Court gives France rights to ancient shipwreck linked to Fort Caroline colony - News - The Florida Times-Union - Jacksonville, FL

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[huntsman53]

From all that has been posted. I garner that Ribault brought 5 monuments over from France in 1562 and during the (?)1564 or (?)1565 Expedition, his' ship the La Trinite and three others sank as well, while one smaller ship was scuttled and two made it back to France. If this is supposedly correct, then why is there no mention of the monuments (per the Manifest) in the article by NOAA's Ocean Exploration and Research "Search for the Lost French Fleet" https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/14lostfleet/background/french-fleet/french-fleet.html and it is noted that the Manifests for the 7 ships in Ribault's Fleet are dated 28 April 1565. Should not the Manifests be dated before or on the day the ships sailed? If so, then why is the date 1564 being used so often in this and other related Threads?

 

[huntsman53]

After looking into it further, it appears that Ribault and his' Fleet sailed again in 1565 and sunk in September of that year. So again, why is the year 1564 so often mentioned?

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/14lostfleet/background/history-pt2/history-pt2.html

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/14lostfleet/background/history-pt1/history-pt1.html

 

[QuartermasterD]

Excellent clarification. I can't remember if I transcribed that date from somewhere else or it was just a mistake on my part. Either way, it's a significant misprint and I'm glad you made a point to correct it.

It was Laudonniere who returned in 1564 with 3 ships and founded Fort Caroline. Ribault did not return until 1565 with a relief expedition of 7 ships.

Bennett, Charles E. Laudonniere & Fort Caroline: History and Documents, 2001.

I believe 1564 may have been referenced in this thread as the date when Laudonniere returned and found the natives worshipping the monument placed at the May River in 1562.

At the remark of how inappropriate it was for me to ask others on the forum to share the source documenting 5 additional monuments, I decided to add my credit card information to PACER and search on my own. Unfortunately, the PACER system is organized in a way that makes searching for such information a fairly time consuming task, so I'm still going through it. Once [or if] I find it though, I will be sure to share it.

 

[huntsman53]

Excellent clarification. I can't remember if I transcribed that date from somewhere else or it was just a mistake on my part. Either way, it's a significant misprint and I'm glad you made a point to correct it.

It was Laudonniere who returned in 1564 with 3 ships and founded Fort Caroline. Ribault did not return until 1565 with a relief expedition of 7 ships.

Bennett, Charles E. Laudonniere & Fort Caroline: History and Documents, 2001.

I believe 1564 may have been referenced in this thread as the date when Laudonniere returned and found the natives worshipping the monument placed at the May River in 1562.

At the remark of how inappropriate it was for me to ask others on the forum to share the source documenting 5 additional monuments, I decided to add my credit card information to PACER and search on my own. Unfortunately, the PACER system is organized in a way that makes searching for such information a fairly time consuming task, so I'm still going through it. Once [or if] I find it though, I will be sure to share it.

Thanks! More importantly than either date, 1564 or 1565, was the somewhat detailed article written and published by NOAA's Ocean Exploration and Research Office which does not mention any Monuments being onboard the La Trinite whatsoever in the 28 April 1565 Ship's Manifest. Did they overlook this fact?? I think not and as I stated earlier, it is easy for Lawyers and Witnesses to bend facts to meet their needs. If it is found that the shipwreck is not the La Trinite, then GME should sue the State of Florida and France into the ground and for possession of all of the finds regardless of whether it was Embedded or not.

 

[QuartermasterD]

Getting close... Hopefully I'll have time to follow up on these citations tomorrow.

Case: 6:16-cv-01742-KRS; Document: 75; Filed: 09/26/17; Page: 12 of 23; Page ID: 560

Even more distinctive and quite literally unique is the stone monument at the site that "corresponds exactly to the drawings conserved in the French archives that recount the [French] expeditions to Floiride." (LeLuc Decl. at p 20). These monuments were intended to mark formally la Floride as territory of France and "only a royal ship would have been given the charge of transporting an object so closely linked to the king's power as that of a landmark bearing the arms of France." (LeLuc Decl. at pp 18-20). The stone monument is all the more significant "because it is the first of its kind" to have been located in more than 450 years since the fall of New France: no others are known to have survived. (Id.). As the Ambassador of Spain to the Court of King Charles IX reported to King Philip II on January 19, 1566, the Ribault Fleet had been carrying six "marble columns with the arms of this King [Charles IX]" and their loss was "felt keenly". (Delgado Decl. at p 55)

 

[TRG]

...These monuments were intended to mark formally la Floride as territory of France and "only a royal ship would have been given the charge of transporting an object so closely linked to the king's power as that of a landmark bearing the arms of France." (LeLuc Decl. at pp 18-20). ...[/I]

Conjecture/inference.

If the ships manifest exists it can be checked and if the monuments were aboard they should be listed - no? The NOAA article quotes from the manifests of three of the vessels.

 

[QuartermasterD]

Little more info...

Case: 6:16-cv-01742-KRS; Document: 75-16; Filed: 09/26/17; Page: 20 of 22; Page ID: 851

A January 19, 1566 letter to King Philip II by Don Frances de Alva, the Spanish Ambassador to King Charles IX of France, reports that the French Court had received word that the Ribault Fleet had been lost. The 11 page de Alva letter, written in code, recounts dismay at the Court of Charles IX at the fact that six territorial markers had been on board and lost with the Ribault Fleet. The passage concerning the marble columns, decoded on the margin of the page, states:

Of the captain [Ribault] who went from Bordeaux in the small ship of which I have written your majesty, to Florida, it is also understood here that a Spanish ship sent it to the bottom and they felt this keenly because it carried six marble columns with the arms of this king and many epitaphs to put them in the fort of la Florida.

(Exhibit 9, de Alava letter)

 

[TRG]

So perhaps the implication is that the monuments were left off the manifest as 'secret cargo'?

 

[ARC]

Monument(s)... as well as the cannon were IMO used as ballast on another ship altogether. heh

The thing that has perplexed me from day one of this wreck has been the fact that only 3 cannon were sighted.

Is that still true ?

Other cannon embedded ?

The other cannon looted ?...

Were these cannon looted back then for ballast and what we are seeing is nothing more than another ship with its hold exposed ?

 

[releventchair]

Little more info...

Case: 6:16-cv-01742-KRS; Document: 75-16; Filed: 09/26/17; Page: 20 of 22; Page ID: 851

A January 19, 1566 letter to King Philip II by Don Frances de Alva, the Spanish Ambassador to King Charles IX of France, reports that the French Court had received word that the Ribault Fleet had been lost. The 11 page de Alva letter, written in code, recounts dismay at the Court of Charles IX at the fact that six territorial markers had been on board and lost with the Ribault Fleet. The passage concerning the marble columns, decoded on the margin of the page, states:

Of the captain [Ribault] who went from Bordeaux in the small ship of which I have written your majesty, to Florida, it is also understood here that a Spanish ship sent it to the bottom and they felt this keenly because it carried six marble columns with the arms of this king and many epitaphs to put them in the fort of la Florida.

(Exhibit 9, de Alava letter)

Huh.
"Small" ship in the Ribault fleet.
Put to bottom by a Spanish ship certainly differs from previous account of storm scuttling the Triniti....

 

[QuartermasterD]

I also found it interesting that the de Alva letter states the ship with the six monuments on it was sent to the bottom by a Spanish ship. Still a lot of documents to get through, yet.

I found a document today that says some of the cannons were salvaged by a group of survivors that built a fort. The Spanish burned the fort and buried these cannons. I believe I also read somewhere here that most of the cannons brought in 1565 were intended for use on land and were being used as ballasts in the ships that sank.

Case: 6:16-cv-01742-KRS; Document: 81-4; Filed: 12/04/17; Page: 20 of 21; Page ID: 1186

The Adelantado received these people very well and gave them very good treatment: he set fire to the fort, which was of wood, and destroyed it; and he burned the ship which was being built, and buried the artillery, as the boats could not carry it because they were small.

 

[QuartermasterD]

I doubt any of us can translate, but here is the actual letter from Don Frances de Alva that says there were six monuments:

https://www.scribd.com/document/383661345/Letter-from-Don-Frances-de-Alva-to-the-King

 

[QuartermasterD]

Here is the detailed registers of artillery:

https://www.scribd.com/document/383665692/1565-Registers-of-Artillery

 

[huntsman53]

I also found it interesting that the de Alva letter states the ship with the six monuments on it was sent to the bottom by a Spanish ship. Still a lot of documents to get through, yet.

I found a document today that says some of the cannons were salvaged by a group of survivors that built a fort. The Spanish burned the fort and buried these cannons. I believe I also read somewhere here that most of the cannons brought in 1565 were intended for use on land and were being used as ballasts in the ships that sank.

Case: 6:16-cv-01742-KRS; Document: 81-4; Filed: 12/04/17; Page: 20 of 21; Page ID: 1186

The Adelantado received these people very well and gave them very good treatment: he set fire to the fort, which was of wood, and destroyed it; and he burned the ship which was being built, and buried the artillery, as the boats could not carry it because they were small.

I wonder if any of the documents/letters were forged or added to after the State of Florida notified France after GME filed for a salvage permit and or arrest of the shipwreck. Sorry but I don't trust the French any further than I can throw them as they got us into the Vietnam War and then bailed on us, they kicked U.S. Troops out of France in 1967 after we demanded some repayment of War debts for what the U.S. spent on rebuilding many cities in France and especially Paris and also because they treated us (myself and fellow soldiers from my' Unit) like dirt when we spent nearly a week in Paris on Leave. Paris is a nasty city with nasty people!

 

[QuartermasterD]

Highly doubtful, in my opinion. I think the only plausible related scenario is if they purposefully omitted the translation of the rest of Alva's letter because it included context to suggest the ship carrying the monuments was not the Trinite. I haven't read all the case documents yet, but I believe I exhausted all those to include evidence of additional monuments being onboard the Trinite. If my memory serves correct, the most conclusive court document presented (that I was trying to find) was from the Spanish archives documenting a French survivors account of there being additional monuments onboard [one or more of] the wrecked ships. I would interpret the Alva letter to be such, but it would be great if the entire letter was translated.

 

[ARC]

I wonder if any of the documents/letters were forged or added to after the State of Florida notified France after GME filed for a salvage permit and or arrest of the shipwreck. Sorry but I don't trust the French any further than I can throw them as they got us into the Vietnam War and then bailed on us, they kicked U.S. Troops out of France in 1967 after we demanded some repayment of War debts for what the U.S. spent on rebuilding many cities in France and especially Paris and also because they treated us (myself and fellow soldiers from my' Unit) like dirt when we spent nearly a week in Paris on Leave. Paris is a nasty city with nasty people!

Hence why I would have told em to go pound sand.

 

[xaos]

Bull Shiite!! If a factual not made up document can show that the monument found by GME was not on the Trinite and in turn proves that the ship is not the Trinite, then it has a lot of bearing on the decision.

There were matches to cannon and other artefacts, not just the monument, that made it a perfect match for the manifest of the Trinity.
As others have suggested reading the court ruling details everything very distinctly.
or you can just keep guessing.

 

[huntsman53]

Highly doubtful, in my opinion. I think the only plausible related scenario is if they purposefully omitted the translation of the rest of Alva's letter because it included context to suggest the ship carrying the monuments was not the Trinite. I haven't read all the case documents yet, but I believe I exhausted all those to include evidence of additional monuments being onboard the Trinite. If my memory serves correct, the most conclusive court document presented (that I was trying to find) was from the Spanish archives documenting a French survivors account of there being additional monuments onboard [one or more of] the wrecked ships. I would interpret the Alva letter to be such, but it would be great if the entire letter was translated.

Due to the amount of cargo that the La Trinité was carrying, your theory is highly plausible per the items listed on her' Manifest by NOAA (i.e. A significant amount of munitions, armament, and supplies are listed on its 28 April 1565 manifest. Iron objects which are likely preserved include 20 berches (large faucons or falcons, a class of cannon); four chiens (another artillery class); 977 cannon balls; 300 iron pikes; 1,300 nails; 100 corsets of armor; 3,153 pounds of stock iron; two anvils; a large iron bowl; a sheet of iron; and a variety of small items including tongs, hooks, pincers, and other hand tools.). It is quite possible that the L’…mérillon (2) was carrying the Monuments because her' cargo was somewhat of a mystery or secret per her' manifest also listed by NOAA (i.e. Her cargo and armament remains somewhat of a mystery, as her full manifest is not extant and the surviving receipt signed by her captain Vincent Collas lists only 48 cannon balls and 56 pounds of gunpowder.). It appears that the L’…mérillon (2) would have had plenty of room for the Monuments and would not have been overloaded.

 

[ivan salis]

sadly ---the French won the wreck by claiming rights under the "sunken military craft act" ...by claiming all of the French fleet vessels that left fort caroline were on a "military mission" at the time of thier sinking being they were headed to attack the Spanish at St Augustine when they was struck by a hurricane / strong storm ...sadly for GME … it did not need to be sunk by enemy action to be thought of as "sunk while on a military mission" ….much like the Spanish Armada that sank while enroute to attack England by bad weather is thought of as "war graves" even thought they were not sunk by combat ---- the French in my view should at least have to at least pay a "finders fee" to cover the finding cost ...but we all know that's not happening ….

and if one claimed it was a "looted" monument from fort caroline on a Spanish vessel headed back to St Augustine --the Spanish would then step in claiming it as a "military craft on a mission" (returning proof that the French had tried to claim florida --thus justifying the attack on fort caroline--the monument would be the "proof" spain needed) --so basically your screwed either way ...esp when your own govt is working against you …