Re: St. Margaret

["Spirit One Email" <laurel@spiritone.com>]

Dear Neil,
    Thanks a bunch.  I have to get dressed and be off to get a blood test
but am having too much fun writting this history.  I have copied a message I
just sent to Lord Malcolm when he asked me about a mosaic in the House of
Lords which is supposed to depict Charlemagne giving a piece of the holy
rood to St. Margaret.   There is more information here amoung my pipe
dreams.   I have more concerning the research in Hungary that I will send
you later.
Laurel
======
Dear Lord Malcolm,
I have included the message that I sent out about William the Seemly to
our Discussion list but after thinking it over during the night, I changed a
word in the second paragraph, "around became by".  I can think of several
scenarios to William's life.  Perhaps when his father, Walderne was killed
at the battle of Val-des-dunes in 1047 his life might have been in danger.
He would have been around 19.  Did he go to live in a monastery, did he come
soon to Edward the Confessor's court where he would have met up with Malcolm
Canmore who was around his age and become fast friends there, and then in my
message below go as part of the delegation to Hungary?

Did he go with or join his uncle William in Apulia? Morrison did not know
about this Uncle William when he compiled the History of the Sinclairs.  (I
have a copy of it)   We don't know that William was in Apulia by then but
being the third son, it was unlikely as a young man that he would inherit
any lands or title so he could well be with other younger sons in Apulia and
Sicily carving out territory for themselves.  But with the death of Hamo and
Walderne he would have perhaps returned within the year and claimed his
birthright as Count of Mortain.
    It is known that he was there in Normandy and was then called William
the Warling (Warlenc).  So he must have been in some battles to have
received that title that is why I envision him being in Apulia before he
appears in the history of Normandy.  Now this uncle William might have had
sons that could have been at Hastings.  There are plenty of St. Clair
cousins to make up the total 9 for Hastings and not involve William the
Seemly.
    It is written in the Normandy history that there were certain relatives
that maligned William concerning his illegitimate birth.  Very likely it was
uncle William trying to stir up support for his candidacy for Duke of
Normandy.  This enraged Duke William, so he took away uncle William's lands
and title and gave them to the Duke's 1/2 brother Robert who now became the
Count of Mortainin 1855-56.  Uncle William left for Apulia .  Did uncle W.
take young William the Seemly with him?   Did William the Seemly marry and
settle down in  Normandy or Apulia?
    By this date things had settled down in Hungary.  The battles fought by
Edmund the Athling and his brother Edward in Hungary to put their friend,
Andrew on the throne --crowned king in 1046.  Notice that Edmund was the
Athling (considered to be the pretender to the English Crown as eldest
brother rather than Edward, but Edmund died and so then he became Edward the
Athling).  This was before William the Seemly's father and uncle Hamon died.
There were plenty of battles and problems at home to be involved in rather
than go off to Hungary to help out Andrew.  If his Uncle would have
prevailed, then there would have certainly been lands and titles to receive
into his branch of the family so why leave then?
     It is possible that Emma or whoever was watching over the her sons,
Edward and Alfred, in Normandy considered the environment surrounding Robert
the Devil a bad influence or dangerous, so they may have spent some of their
lives in a safe monastery where maybe they crossed paths with our William?
This is maybe stretching it but it makes me wonder why there is, so far,
only one reference that I have found of Edward the Confessor for those many
years in Normandy.
    But I find with all my scenarios, the truth usually turns out to be
something entirely surprising, that's what makes this history so much fun
for me.

     Now about Margaret and Charlemagne.--- Are you sure this is supposed to
be Charlemagne?
Could it possibly be someone else?   Charlemagne died in 814, 232 years
before Margaret was born.  I can't see the connection between them except
Charlemagne's empire might have extended to Hungary, it's hard to tell when
looking at a map of this territory to see whether some part of Hungary might
be included.  Margaret certainly brought a new influence and understanding
of Christianity to Scotland but not to England.  She had no influence on
England while she was growing up there mostly in a nunnery.  It is pretty
certain that by 1068-9, it was unlikely that Margaret's brother Edgar the
Athling would  have a position in the new English monarchy and the perhaps
hope of her mother marrying William the Conqueror, was blocked.  So it is
thought by many of today's researchers that the family was on its way back
to Hungary when they had to seek shelter in Scotland.   But she really made
King Malcolm "shape-up" and brought back some basic Christian concepts from
the conservative Eastern Church influenced somewhat by the Byzantines.   So
perhaps the mosaic is trying to symbolically depict her Christian influence
to Scotland's church as Charlemagne caused Christianity to advance in his
empire.

 I think that history gets scrambled because it is complicated, it takes
time to tell the factors that are causing these things to happen and if
there are third or fourth parties involved, their stories get attributed to
the two main characters and the story gets shorter and shorter as we have
less time to tell it before we see the listener's eyes glaze over with
"mental overload".
    Sure wish I could be there to see and hear it all.  Love to hear from
you.
As ever,
Laurel


----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Sinclair/Peggy Rintoul <rinsin@globalserve.net>
To: <sinclair@matrix.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: St. Margaret


> Laurel;
> When it comes to recognizing the great historians of the current century,
> you will be well up there as a communicator and researcher of the
knowledge
> of those that came before. Of course I was seeking a context for what Rory
> was sharing, and happened to have a friend who is researching masonic
> studies with me, so this tied into the Sinclairs and as he is also a
student
> of Hungarian history, the connection between the Sinclairs and Hungary was
> curious for me and the flag seemed to be a link, which you now illustrate
> that it is in the historical context you assert. I will be asking my
friend
> if there are any historical insights from his connections in the
> Universities of Hungary. and share it with you.
>
> I must say, that while I have been an avid student of all sorts of
history,
> what I have come across in this past year is daunting because of the depth
> and breadth of the knowledge which is tied into ancient masonry, Sinclairs
> as the fulcrum of the keeping of the history and passing it through and
the
> ancient information in the religions between 2000 BC and 1000 AD that are
> buried in the middle east. Bill Bueler is not off the wall in the ancient
> geometric principlas that became a basis for much philosophy, theology and
> religion to say nothing of the construction of the physical world. I am
over
> whelmed this year with all the "more" that there is to study just looking
at
> something a simple as one family heritage and the social impacts that
> surrounded  it. Your material is worth posting.
>
> I am so glad that your wisdom is again being communicated. There is so
much
> you have. Yours aye;
> Neil
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Spirit One Email" <laurel@spiritone.com>
> To: <sinclair@matrix.net>
> Sent: 8 June, 2000 12:33 AM
> Subject: Re: St. Margaret
>
>
> > Dear Neil,
> >
> >     Maybe you intended to way that William the Seemly accompanied St.
> > Margaret  back from Hungary?   I  don't mean to jump on to a slip of the
> > finger, we all do it.   Here is some new information on the subject that
> > people might not know yet.
> >
> >    William the Seemly was born around 1028 in Normandy and was in
England
> > around 1057.  Margaret was born in Hungary in 1046.  It was her father
and
> > uncle (sons of King Edmund Ironsides) that were forced out of England as
> > tiny babies when Knute conquered England and married Queen Emma, sister
of
> > our Mauger, Count of Mortain & Corbeil, in 1017.
> >    So William the Seemly didn't escort her to Hungary, since she wasn't
> born
> > yet, but it is quite possible he went with the delegation sent by Edward
> the
> > Confessor (s/o Emma) in Sept. 1057 as the king's representative and
became
> > the cupbearer of Edward the Exile.  It was hoped that Edward the Exile
> would
> > become the heir to Edward the Confessor who was childless but  Ed the
> Exile
> > died as he reached England (very suspicious).   William the Seemly's
> father,
> > Walderne, was the cousin of Edward the Confessor.
> >    Margaret was of no political interest and would have been very
> > unimportant in the whole picture at that time as she was firmly
dedicated
> to
> > the church and definitely planned never to marry.  It doesn't make sense
> > that this non-person would be entrusted with a piece of the Holy Rood.
> More
> > likely (if it ever happened) it would have been given to her father,
> Edward
> > the Exile, by his friend King Andrew of Hungary whom Edward and his
> brother
> > had helped to regain his throne in Hungary.  Also because of the threat
of
> > Duke William of Normandy who possessed a Holy relic from the Pope, it
> would
> > make sense to give  an important relic such as the Holy Rood to Edward
the
> > Exile to provide him with Holy power as King of England.
> > 20 years passed before she married Malcolm Canmore and then it was
against
> > her will.  King Malcolm threatened the life of her brother, Edgar the
> > Athling, and finally she gave in.  (Anglo-Saxon Chronicles) Women were
> > usually wed long before the age of 24 in those days especially a woman
> with
> > her lineage.  She was one of the few descendants of the Saxon line of
> > monarchs.  Marrying her would have been a strategically good political
> move
> > but it is quite evident that such suitors were kept away because of her
> > religious commitment.  So it took real force from King Malcolm to change
> her
> > mind.
> >    I993 was the 900th anniversary of the death of Saint Margaret Queen
of
> > Scotland.  At least two people researched and published books about her
> > life.  No where in either of these books is there a mention of the Holy
> Rood
> > being brought with her from Hungary.  Such a fact would not have been
> > overlooked.   I have corresponded with another  English researcher on
> > Margaret's history who says, " The other serious problem with your
legend
> is
> > that Margaret, a girl of about ten in 1057, would hardly have had a
Norman
> > knight as cupbearer.  Nor is there anything established about a Holy
Rood
> > brought by Margaret from Hungary.  If your William was indeed Margaret's
> > cupbearer then he must have been appointed upon her marriage to Malcolm
> > Canmore in Scotland."
> > Hope this helps,
> > Laurel
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rory Sinclair <rory.sinclair@accglobal.net>
> > To: <sinclair@matrix.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 10:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: Sinclair Dates & Appreciation
> >
> >
> > > Dear Neil:
> > > I was leaving the field open to Niven but as he seems otherwise
> occupied,
> > I
> > > will repeat what I got from him but have seen from no other source
(not
> > that
> > > I have specifically looked).  The engrailed cross, at least in sable
> > (black)
> > > has been with the Sinclairs a long time.  Niven told me, and I hope I
> > > remember correctly, that we Sinclairs obtained  the "ragged cross"
after
> > > William "The Seemly" St. Clair accompanied St. Margaret (later wife of
> > > Malcolm Canmore) to Hungary from which she returned with a piece of
the
> > true
> > > cross which was later enshrined in "Holyrood" (Rood = tree in old
> english,
> > a
> > > version of which was the language spoken in Lowland Scotland  at the
> time)
> > > to Hungary circa 1057.
> > > It may be true that a "croix pattee" or templar cross can be made by
> > taking
> > > the very centre of an egrailed cross up to the first 'scallop' away
from
> > the
> > > whole but if the above be true re: William the Seemly,  then the croix
> > > pattee is an anachronism insofar as the Crusades and hence the
Templars
> > came
> > > appx. 50 years later.
> > >
> > > I'd like to get to the bottom of this myself.
> > > Aye,
> > > Rory
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Neil Sinclair/Peggy Rintoul <rinsin@globalserve.net>
> > > To: sinclair@matrix.net <sinclair@matrix.net>
> > > Date: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:44 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Sinclair Dates & Appreciation
> > >
> > >
> > > >Dear John;
> > > >Everyday I think of you, and in a most positive way to be sure. When
> you
> > > >share the important dates in history we are connected this day with
all
> > > >those days that have gone before, linking the past and present in a
> > > >contextual way. Today I note the anniversary of Robert Bruces death,
so
> > > >intimately tied into the family heritage. I applaud you for again
> quietly
> > > >and persistently keeping the shared interests moving forward in a
> > positive
> > > >direction. Now as for the granting of the Sinclair shield and
heraldic
> > > >symbols ...anyone???
> > > >Neil Sinclair
> > > >Toronto/PEI/Forever Argyll
> > > >.
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq@matrix.net>
> > > >To: <sinclair@matrix.net>
> > > >Sent: 7 June, 2000 3:19 AM
> > > >Subject: Sinclair Dates
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>    [1]Sinclair Dates:  June 7.
> > > >>    In 1329: Robert I the Bruce d., King of Scots dies.
> > > >>    [2]Tomorrow:  June 8.
> > > >>    In 1376: Edward III d.,
> > > >>    [3]King of England dies.
> > > >>    In 1329: David II, King of Scots
> > > >>    In 1042: Harthacnut end,
> > > >>    [4]King of England ends reign
> > > >>    In 793: Vikings sack Lindisfarne, Beginning of the Viking Age.
> > > >>
> > > >> References
> > > >>
> > > >>    1. http://www.mids.org/sinclair/timeline.html
> > > >>    2. http://www.mids.org/sinclair/timeline.html
> > > >>    3. http://www.angelfire.com/de/BobSanders/TIME1.html
> > > >>    4. http://www.angelfire.com/de/BobSanders/TIME1.html
> > > >> [ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
> > > >> [ To get off or on the list, see
> http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
> > > >[ To get off or on the list, see
http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > [ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
> > > [ To get off or on the list, see
http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
> >
> >
> > [ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
> > [ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
> >
>
> [ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
> [ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html

[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html