[Up] [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Earl Henry

This is a resend. I attempted to send it earlier, but there was some
sort of glitch in the program and it did not go thru. Sally
The proofs or points of proofs are stated in the digest very well, there
is one problem - how many of us have access to the books and have read
them so as to be sure they represent the facts?
Jarl Henry had enough to do to take care of his own property without
going to North America. I am overlooking the 'castle' and westford
knight completely. Two items that like the runes found in Minnesota
supposedly proved that Vikings got that far in their explorations of NA
is absurd. So the trip itself - not enough information. Sounds good, be
nice if it did happen, especially if led by one of our own. It is also
nice to have a real "Prince" - son of a king for a common ancestor!
Yes, and I am kin to Pocahontas - never mind that the trail back to the
indian wife of Thomas Rolfe is thru the one son and his 6 children and
the many marriages and children to come after that. So through the
children of Arthur Sinclair  you would be happy to know that in some
convoluted way, you too can be related to Pocahontas. Aren't you
thrilled to the core of your being with that information. By the same
token - that Jarl Henry absolutely went to North America and did what
the sages of today say is an absolute truth!  Too long ago, no place in
the sagas. No identifiable  written by an unimpeachable source about the
trip. Is someone catching onto the last of the Ericsson colony and
trying to make it into a new trip?
Hakluyt Society put forth the information on Ericsson, are they saying
anything?  Is/has anyone/group done a careful continuous study of what
little is still there to make a positive statement.  I think it is too
early to have done so and too many romantics would like it to be true. I
come to the Prince Henry story with disbelief. The Templar 'business'
equally.  I have not seen any proof other than enthusiasm. Yes, the
Sinclairs probably became (and I have no proof  this is so, other than I
am told so) Masters of Masonry of Scotland.  In what form?  The
governing body of all freemasonry from whence all lodges were
constituted?  That part of freemasonry from whence sprung the masonic
Templars?  The Templars are not Scottish Rite Masony, they are York Rite
Masonry.  That much I know because my father was one (1st step).  The
AF&AM or FAAM, either way are very secretive and snow the rest of the
people with the idea that they come from the original builders of The
Temple after Maccabees. No, I think they may in some way come from the
band of free men who were allowed to go from place to place building
churches and castles at a time when all men were in service to a
particular "lord"/landowner. Stone masonry is not an easy thing. This
would put the two sets of masons many generations apart. There is a new
book in the stores on the Knights Templar - that is, the original Poor
Knights of the Temple. I should have bought the book. Maybe it would
have explained what I do not know about  the evidently abundant
money/treasures held by the Knights Templer and whether or no they were
able to get it away from the king.  Without an audit trail and only an
oral history, the story is only a story. Archeology is not done in a
year - or even 10 years. Egyptian archeology has been ongoing for over a
century and new ideas are still being brought out. Read the Sherlock
Holmes story - "The Musgrave Ritual" - originally the ritual had to do
about an event. After many generations, the ritual was meaningless
for the moment. Sally