Interview with Sir Scott Stewart, American Ambassador of the Royal House of Stewart
Oct 23, 2004
Author: Tracy R. Twyman
H.E. Sir Scott Stewart is the American Ambassador to the Royal House of Stewart and
Director, Emeritus of the Highland Cultural Preservation Society, as well as a manager at Circuit City. He is a member of the Scottish Knights Templar and Noble Order of the Guard of St. Germain, and is directly descended from Robert the Bruce. In this interview, he discusses everything from Scottish nationalism and his familyís political destiny, to space aliens and the Ark of the Covenant.
DR: What do you do as Ambassador to the House of Stewart? What are your duties?
SS: Well when we originally started this about 5 and 1/2 years ago, we realized that there were a lot of expatriated Scots and even more people of Scottish descent that were living in the United States and at that time in North America, because we hadnít broken down the area yet. And with Prince Michael writing the book, and doing a little research into Scottish American cultural events throughout the country, we realized there wasnít a lot of knowledge out there. So when we divided the ambassadorship title, we were basically looking at it initially more as an ambassador of information, as opposed to what one might find in the traditional diplomatic core, where we would be meeting with other diplomats talking about political issues. So we kind of envisioned starting that way, being a clearinghouse for information about the Royal House of Stewart, and as
an ambassador primarily between Prince Michael and people of Scottish American descent who had an interest in that, rather than from government to government, so to speak.
DR: So how are you proliferating this information then? How is it getting out to these people of Scottish descent?
SS: Well, we attend basic Celtic cultural functions around the country, both Highland festivals, Scottish games, Irish-American festivals, and usually there are about 20-25 of those that I attend in different areas of the country. And sometimes it amounts to just walking around, introducing yourself to people of different family heritages and things like that. It also involves speaking occasions. I speak for groups quite often. So it takes on a lot of forms, and now with Prince Michaels book recently being published, we get a lot of internet inquiries, because we have a website, and we get a lot of personal mail from people either inquiring about the history of the House of Stewart, or its current stance on maybe a particular Scottish political issue, or Scottish American political issue for that matter.
DR: Well that is what Iím interested in. Iím curious about what the House of Stewart is trying to accomplish now. I guess theyíre trying to reclaim the throne of Scotland, right?
SS: Well, Prince Michaels position, obviously, as the senior representative of the House of Stewart - and there are probably 1500-2000 people of Stewart surname that can trace directly their ancestry back to the reigning Stewart monarchy - but what he hopes to accomplish is to be able to give the Scottish people a choice in that regard. In other words, he is by birthright and heritage the representative of that royal house, but by the same token we live in the modern era, its not the eighteenth century, and for him to impose himself simply by virtue of that heritage upon the Scottish nation wouldnít
really be realistic or fair. He sees himself in a situation where, in the event that the Scottish people should not choose a monarchy, he would represent their interests as a cultural ambassador, someone who would be representing that heritage and that bloodline in the modern era, as a representative of the Scottish culture and people. In the event that they should choose a constitutional monarchy unique to Scotland as opposed to the United Kingdom, at that point he would be honored and of course willing and able to take up that mantle as well. But we envision that happening through a constitutional process where the people choose a uniquely Scottish monarchy, and in the event of that, the Royal House of Stewart would be a candidate certainly.
DR: In that case what powers would reside with the monarch in Scotland?
SS: Well, basically under the constitutional monarchy that Prince Michael and the House of Stewart have proposed at this point, the king would protect the rights of the people as a guarantor of the peopleís rights. So he would act as a check and balance in a parliamentary system, where the parliament in the traditional sense, like any representative system in general, would propose the laws and enact the laws with the king and the privy council providing consent and being able to intervene on behalf of the rights of the nation as a whole if there was a question of the constitutionality of a particular law.
DR: Sort of like the Supreme Court does here.
SS: Well to some extent, although judicially not exactly the same way. In a constitutional monarchy, although in the judicial system a lot of those appointments would be made by the monarch, from a legislative standpoint, it would be similar to what would happen in a United States Supreme Court, where they determine the constitutionality of the laws keeping theoretically in mind that their powers are derived from the people. It would be similar in that way in that the monarch serves as the father of his people, the representative of their legitimate interests, protecting their interests from both internal and external pressures. So if there were a law proposed that the King of Scots felt was not in the best interests of the people, obviously he would be honor-bound by the Declaration of Arbroath and continuing on with the Scottish written constitution that is proposed, to stand up and take an active part and lobby against an act
that he felt was oppressive and not in the best interests of the people.
DR: OK, well if in this constitutional monarchy Scotland was an independent state, would it be a member of the European Union?
SS: Oh, by all means. In Scotland, even the staunch advocates of the Republican form of
government see the alliance with the European Union as being vitally important. So we would definitely want a situation where Scotland took a role even greater than the United Kingdom as a whole, which has had some hesitancy in completely integrating with the European Union. Scotland, on the other hand, and certainly the Royal House of Stewart feels that a close association and membership with the European Union is essential.
DR So, is this part of a larger movement to reinstate monarchy throughout the world, like in other European countries, maybe in America even?
SS: Well, its funny you should mention that, because an episode that is often overlooked in United States history is that in the early days, just after the war for independence, there were a lot of very influential people who had actually suggested that the newly emerging states of America should look to the Royal House of Stewart for a monarch. And from that standpoint, our own feeling about the legitimacy of monarchy goes into far deeper philosophical views, that as long as the monarch is cognizant of the fact that he or she takes on the responsibility of fatherhood of the nation and the people, and keeps in mind that that his primary charge is as a benefactor of the people, we think that it provides an outside of the realm of politics check and balance in any political system, even more so than the President of the United States or of a republic, where that president as well is subject to the political whims of the time. A monarch, we feel, is not influenced by political ebbs and tides but rather, hopefully, is concerned with the continued and
long-term benefit of the people.
DR: What does a monarch base his legitimacy on? In the book Bloodline of the Holy Grail its suggested that the Stewarts are descendant from the House of David, and I wonder what exactly is the significance of that?
SS: Well, from a philosophical standpoint, we find that extremely important. We believe that. In other words itís a historical theory put forward that youíll have some legitimate historians poo-poo and youíll have others that say itís completely legitimate. But we, the Royal House of Stewart believe that that is the case, that we derived our bloodline from the House of David. Again, kind of crossing the line from politics into ideology or philosophy, from that standpoint, we feel very much so that our responsibility to reign is a mandate from God. A lot of people throughout the years from various monarchies have taken that title and that position of power to enslave people or to exploit economic systems. We feel quite the contrary, looking at our house, and what we envision as our responsibility, that itís very important that that responsibility and service to the people is carried forth. Just as David was given that responsibility from God for the oversight of
his people, we consider that being carried on in our family, and thatís an essential element of a Stewart monarchy, that our first and foremost responsibility is to our creator, and that entails a responsibility to our people.
DR: It was suggested in Bloodline of the Holy Grail that you guys have been keeping secrets for a long time about the origins of Christianity and perhaps the origins of humanity, and there was a hint in there that it might have something to do with extraterrestrials, even. Do you have an opinion on that or any knowledge of that?
SS: I do have an opinion on that subject, and it has to do with things that have been handed down from generation to generation for a number of thousands of years. Itís kind of been considered in the esoteric ranks certainly for obvious reasons, kind of a gnosis to borrow the Greek term for it. Basically the way we feel about that is that the information is not secret to the extent that its intentionally hidden away, perhaps, but that individuals at various times in their lives, like all of us, have questioned. Some person may ask Why is the sky blue?, and want a definitive, scientific explanation for that. Other people may take for granted their whole lives that the sky is blue and not question it. If you sat down with someone who took for granted the sky is blue and gave them a scientific explanation for it, their eyes would probably glaze over and they may not have a lot of interest in the answer anyway. So I know thatís kind of a roundabout way of answering your question, but yes we do have a belief that that is the case. Itís certainly information thatís extremely important to some and other people might see it as being completely irrelevant to their day-to-day lives. Were not in the position to try to foist that information on the people, especially if it causes them to have a loss of faith, or a loss of their sense of their place in the world and in the scheme of the universe for that matter. So basically that information is available for those who seek it out. Again, itís not secret to the extent that everyone can have access to the information. Itís a matter of whether or not theyíre at a place in their lives where thereís an interest and they find it relevant and they seek that knowledge out.
DR: OK, but in the forward to the Holy Grail book that Prince Michael wrote he said that a number of secrets are destined to be revealed in the next couple of years, and hinted that it had something to do with the millennium. So I wondering what kinds of secrets will be revealed and in what manner. In a public way?
SS: Well, with Prince Michaelís book and the Bloodline of the Holy Grail being written and other pieces of information out there, its kind of the preamble to some of these things being discussed in the mainstream media with broader dissemination of this type of information. To be honest with you, whether it be Scottish Knights Templar, or Knights Templar internationally, or the Order of the Guard of Saint Germain, you know, the Rosicrucian ideology, Sufi Islam, there are many schools of thought that lead to the same path of knowledge per se, where this information in esoteric circles has been available for thousands of years. You know, certain cabalistic information in Judaism. So this information has been out there. Its primarily been information held through a smaller number of people, and again, its not an attempt to exclude people from knowledge but rather to kind of save and safeguard this information until it can be presented in a
time that is correct, so that the relevance is seen by people. In other words, this information being provided 500 years ago would have had little relevance until its proper place and time.
DR: Then what makes it OK to do it now? What is significant about now?>
SS: Well, as you point out, we do have a millennial turn, although again, it doesnít take but a cursory examination of how the current years AD were calculated to see that thereís a certain legitimate historical margin of error there. But nonetheless it is a time when peoples thoughts are turning to that event, when certain things politically in the world are in a stage that commencement of that knowledge is in the right chronological order. There are a lot of things happening in the world stage, both in the minds of individuals, obviously, with the millennium coming up and being more open to more esoteric themes, and with certain things happening on the world stage that make the coming next ten years very significant.
DR: Are you talking about the globalization of governments and currencies?
SS: Well, youíre seeing a big push for whatís been kind of termed in the last fifteen years the New World Order. So youíre seeing that sort of thing happening, which is kind of causing people to, for the first time, look at the potential in the future of a one-world government. Weíre having the prominence of the United Nations, as far as making political decisions, becoming more evident. We have the millennial turn of the clocks, the passage of time which is causing, from a spiritual and psychological standpoint for us to be more in tune. Also talking about events that are occurring in Europe, and even, from the House of Stewarts standpoint things that are happening in Scotland, specifically the push towards independence, the devolution of the United Kingdom. And certainly we believe in the prophecy of the End Times. Now I donít want to be alarmist and
say that the year 2000 is the time for the Armageddon that Hollywood has kind of cleverly marketed. But certainly in the End Times - and only God himself knows the timetable of that - certainly we believe that there will be a one-world government, a government just as the prophecy predicts that will be headed by God himself. At that particular time we feel that the House of Stewart and any other collateral branches of the line of David would certainly be expected to play a prominent role in the administration of that government. Thatís what we see our destiny and our role being. And we also see our destiny and our role being preparing people to welcome and embrace that. Certainly that is something that we feel is extremely important for everyoneís benefit.
DR: What are the other families in Europe that are descended from David - that are claiming that anyway?
SS: Well, there are certainly families of the European dynasties that can claim that descent. There are also many collateral bloodlines. We feel that the former Ethiopian dynasty as well can legitimately claim a link to the House of David, and certainly the collateral families mentioned in Bloodline of the Holy Grail in Southern France, where the Stewarts derived their claim through a collateral family that existed, and even from that standpoint, basically what we would term Grail families that throughout the centuries have maintained that bloodline.
DR: If there were a renewed Stewart monarchy, would the monarch function as a priest-king in any way or as the head of a national church?
SS: Well, youíre talking again about the situation philosophically. The Stewart monarch has no choice but to act as priest-king. That is - without sounding melodramatic - the destiny of the family. Now, from a standpoint of religious toleration we must certainly be tolerant of all people as individual human beings, but by the same token, as the father of the people, the monarch, especially the re-established Stewart monarch would also have a responsibility for the spiritual well-being of his people. Now that would not translate at that point into a mandatory state religion for the people of Scotland, but by the same token the King sets an example and provides spiritual leadership as well as political leadership.
DR: So then, what would be the national church? Would there be a church that you would declare as the one endorsed by the King, by the Stewarts?
SS: It certainly wouldnít be in the traditional historical sense where we would pick out a church, whether it be Episcopalian or the Church of England. I think it would encompass broader spiritual themes, certainly in the Judaic Christian tradition, but without establishing the Church of England or the Episcopalian Church or the Presbyterian Church as the national religion. It would have this philosophical underpinning, but non-denominational.
DR: Well, lets back up then and talk about the international church that it seemed to me you were hinting at, when the world is finally united. You talked about when God comes back and the End Times, preparing for the Kingdom of God, etc., and I guess Iím a little confused because from what Iíve read about the interpretations the Grail families have of , say, the Bible, they totally dismiss the divinity of Jesus and they have a totally different interpretation of what God is. And Iím just wondering what is this God that youíre envisioning coming back and where has he been all this time, if its not the Second Coming that most people would believe in?
SS: Well, itís not the Second Coming in the traditional orthodox Christian view, that Jesus Christ as God will descend and rule for ever and ever. Again, the traditional way that we view Jesus has been pretty clearly delineated and yet often misinterpreted, certainly by organizations within orthodox Christianity that see us as hostile to Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Itís just that, like anything else, it takes no more than a cursory examination of the history of the Christian Church to see that there are many denominations that have vastly different opinions about doctrine and philosophy and different points of scriptural interpretation. What we would basically say is that the God that we believe in and that we would hope to represent is the God that traditional Christianity, Judaism and Islam would recognize, the God of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, the God of the Hebrew Old Testament. Heís not a God that has hidden from people per se, or a new God that people would have absolutely no concept of. What we would suggest is that his identity has been kind of clouded by human interpretation as opposed to the other way around. And when we talk about the end times, at that particular time were talking about, again, that God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Glory, not a mysterious new God. Now one of the things we feel strongly about is that we donít believe traditional Christianityís view of the divinity of Jesus and that Jesus is God. We believe that he was of Gods family, but thereís a huge doctrinal distinction and they would consider us very much heretics from that standpoint.
We do differ tremendously in that regard.
DR: But you talked about God actually coming back and being King over the Earth. It sounds like youíre talking about a physical being. And again Iím wondering: what is that being? What does he look like? What does he do? I mean, it reminds me of Egyptian and Sumerian myths where they talk about actual, physical, superhuman beings walking on the Earth and ruling directly.
SS: Well, youíve read Zecharia Sitchinís theories and books Iím sure that talk about his
interpretation that God is - and from a human perspective we would say its true - that God is an extraterrestrial visitor. And there have been maybe a series of extraterrestrial visitors that have had influence, either through genetic engineering or other vested self-interests, in developing humanity. One of the things we feel very strongly about is that if we were to publish a book, and it contained ultimate truth - the name of God, to the extent that we could describe it, the origins of the planet, of mankind and humanity, and the entire universal truth - if we published that tomorrow and it were available in Barnes and Noble a few weeks from now, unless they were ready to receive that knowledge, we feel that that book could actually sit there and actually contain universal truth and they wouldnít necessarily recognize it. And I know what youíre getting at. In other words: Do we believe that God is an extraterrestrial? Do we believe he has physical form? How do we interact with that? There are things that we feel about all that. Iím just wondering, in this format of a limited interview that we have available to us, whether or not thatís
going to be something where Iím casting out little bits of information that are going to
perhaps be more confusing to people than they are going to be enlightening. I mean I want to be able to give you clear answers. Its not like we have a mandate to be mysterious and hold back information, but by the same token we do have the responsibility, and its a very long, historical responsibility, to be safeguards and guardians of certain pieces of this information. Not to the extent that were lording it over people, or that we have secret information that were withholding to make us more powerful. But by the same token, we donít want to be cavalier and cast this information out before the correct time, before people are ready to accept it and be able to understand it. So I guess what Iím saying in a nutshell is - and it sounds like Iím being evasive. I
do know where youíre going, and you are doing a very good job of trying to guide me
down the path, and its not like Iím not understanding where youíre coming from. But Iím just wondering in this format, whether we really have sufficient time. For instance if we were to pick out just one subject, to talk about our views on the divinity of Jesus, I mean that could probably take 800 pages, and thatís been argued for 2000 years.
DR: OK, but if you expect people to accept the legitimacy of your bloodline and of the other bloodlines, and to submit to your rule, if youíre going to ask people to submit to a monarchy that get its mandate from God, they ought to have a good idea of what that God is. They ought to know what theyíre signing up for.
SS: Well, I agree completely to the extent that, like any other political leader, you have to try to get into their underlying motivations and morality, so that youíll have some idea of what theyíre going to do when put into stressful situations of leadership. So from that standpoint people certainly do have a right to know about an individual leader, and if its a Stewart monarch they certainly have a right to know about the philosophical and moral underpinnings that rest behind him. And when you talk about the identity of God, itís simply the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the Old Testament and the Hebrew scriptures. That there are maybe Sumerian, Egyptian or other ancient civilizations and races talking about their own experiences, to the extent that they could describe them, with God, we think that they are probably one and the same, ultimately. Now if you sort through the kaleidoscope of human perspectives, I think thereís ample evidence to support that thereís been one God communicating. That there were as a human perception other gods, other creative beings, extraterrestrials or other entities that interacted with mankind throughout the centuries, we believe that thereís probably a very good possibility that that occurred as well. The true nature of God? We believe that God is an extraterrestrial, and to the extent that its portrayed in science fiction motion pictures, with the jumpsuits and the starship that zooms across the galaxy in Star Trek fashion, not exactly. We believe that its possible that God has physical form. To the extent that we can understand it with a human mind we believe thereís physical and spiritual form, and in fact that God specifically exists in a material form. Yes, we believe that.
DR: You were talking earlier about the former Egyptian dynasty that you said was a Grail family, and I assume youíre talking about the one that supposedly started when King Solomon had an affair with the Queen of Sheba. Part of the Egyptian legends about how that family started state explicitly that Solomon gave the Ark of the Covenant to his son Menelik, and it was in Ethiopia for a while. Youíve heard about that, right?
DR: OK, I know that the Stewarts have a lot to do with the Templars, and the Templars have a lot to do with the Ark - some even say that they had found and were keeping it. So Iím wondering if the Stewarts might know anything about the Ark - where it might be today, or just what exactly it might be.
SS: Well, the Ark of the Covenant is something thatís very important to the Templars. Iím a Knight Templar, as is Prince Michael, and as are most of the heads of the Grail family associated with them in one manifestation or another. The Ark of the Covenant certainly has fascinated mankind, and certainly those of us from this ideology. The whole establishment of the Knights Templar in crusading times initially was established for the opportunity to get to the Holy Land and pursue archeological pursuits more so than military pursuits at that particular time. Now there are legends within the Templar order that the Ark of the Covenant was found. Likewise there are equally valid legends that say that certain mystery writings were discovered but the actual Ark was not recovered.
DR: OK, but do they get specific about how the Ark worked? I mean, it has all these fantastic powers: it kills people that touch it, and you can sit on the Mercy Seat and
talk to God and it can make manna fall from heaven and all that. So is it really just a cedar box, or is there more too it than that?
SS: Well, you've certainly read Graham Hancockís book, I can see, which is fascinating as he follows all those legends on his trip through Ethiopia. I would say that we believe that the Ark was as described in the Bible and the Hebraic scriptures that survive today, and that is as a communication device, without a doubt - a way that God could actually directly communicate, almost in a holographic type of form. The rituals and the incense in the area, and the way it was handled are almost as if it were super highly electrically charged, even being used as a weapon of war, and that certainly indicates that it contained a tremendous amount of power. Now I would also tend to believe that it was a reflected power. In other words, the way it was constructed, the size, the orientation of the cherubim on the Mercy Seat - all these things contributed in a way to allowing it to be a direct communication device from God. We also find it fascinating from a historic standpoint that this certainly most sacred object of ancient Hebraic tradition suddenly just
disappeared from the scene without so much as a trace, so to speak. Thatís something that Graham Hancock pointed out through thorough research of the historical documents that survive. The various armies and civilizations that sacked Jerusalem Ė there are even very detailed accounts of everything being carted away with the exception of the Ark. So we believe the Ark was secreted away, probably initially in the caverns that archeologists have found under the Temple Mount, and then perhaps whisked out of there. So we believe that it still does exist today and that it plays a vital role in the development of our kingdom.
DR: But you havenít been told where it is or what role it might play specifically.
SS: I personally have never seen it, although there are people I know who feel they very surely know the whereabouts.