[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 5 more proofs and more
It is assumed in every historical narrative that form always follows content. The historical narrative must always be transparent in referring to what actually happened according to the evidence. Voltaire wrote 'too many metaphors are hurtful...to truth, by saying more or less than the thing itself'
Laurel wrote," No where in this quote below is the Zeno connection stated as firmly proven truth. It is presented as a likely hood. It is presented as speculation."
The page has no reference to any speculation about Columbus. Your reference is the Columbus Connection.
The Clan Sinclair USA didn't come up with the 9 Knights story. It was
already there pg 25 and a reference back on pg 26 of Morrisons "History of
the Sinclair Family in Europe and America" 1898.
The lack of quality and accuracy of Morrison is well known.
You keep hinting that the Clan website info about the 9 knights (which has
already been altered to express the lack of proof-if I missed a place, tell
me where) was made up lately to glorify the clan. I don't know where
Morrison found his information but from him or that unknown source, the
story was there some years ago at least before my time. I don't know
whether the number of knights can ever be proven one way or another. We
can't even prove that there were no St. Clair cousins there descended from
the girls in the family, who would have different last names.
Wace, the Battle Abby Rolls and other references mention only one St Clair. I was raised in the Christian tradition the story of man's creation began with Adam and Eve. Everyone is related. I must add I have never deciphered where Cain and Able wives came from.
You demand that we give you proof on the St. Clairs being Barons since
William the Seemly times. Already I sent to the list three or four early
recordings of this but you never replied nor did you give us your source. I
suggest next time you do this before demanding more proof. I cannot tell
whether we argue about this because there were different kinds of baronies
and from the European viewpoint one type is not worthy your consideration or
what?? Is there a problem with definition?
The early barony of Rosline was a feudal grant it was Manorial. The Barony of Roslyn began as a Nova Scotia Barony in 1624. In 1621, King James granted Sir William territory between New England and Newfoundland as New Scotland (Nova Scotia). The Baronets of Nova Scotia were created, as a settlement scheme.
Each Baronet paid 1000 merks for his Barony and 2000 merks to maintain six soldiers in the colony for two years.
Write to the Court of the Lord Lyon King of Arms for your verification.
However, here are some new references: If you look on page 266 of St.
Clairs of the Isles you will see in the last line that Sir William Sinclair
received the Barony of Rosline from Malcolm Canmore , pg 267 has a quote
from " The History of the Saint Clairs" that says the same thing. In the
following pages of the St. Clairs of the Isles there are still more
references to the Barony of Rosslyn. This section is taken from Van
Bassan's works which I know has been discredited by later writers.
Why use discredited references?
Again, I must point out that each time a new Monarch appeared, the magnates
of the country had to reestablish their charters and each time they died,
their heir had to also.
This is typical of Manorial Charters. See J.W. Molyneux-Child The Manorial System The Book Guild lewis 1987
Just because these early charters have been
destroyed, does not prove they never existed. I have documents relating for
a fact that a Sinclair castle had been burned and proof of the family
descent could not be produced any more. So just because proof could not be
produced does that mean the living people did not exist?
I see no reason to consider changing anything until you present some proof
that no Barony existed before the date you gave and that earlier records of
the Barony were not destroyed.
See Burke's Peerage for dates or Debrett, John. The Peerage of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland. 8th ed. London: F. C. Rivington, et al., 1812. From the Web
Peerage of England 1790 (Barons and Viscounts only)http://midas.ac.uk/genuki/big/eng/History/Barons/
If they were so eager to print all the complimentary fables about the Sinclairs, how is it they missed the St. Margaret fantasies? . No one will produce the references for
these statements whereas I have repeatedly produced 3 contemporary
historians on St. Margaret and her family that never mention any of this and
two have told me it is ridiculous (I couldn't get in contact with the 3rd).
I asked an author of a very recent book containing some of these errors to
tell me what his references were. No answer.
If you read the Quartman excelent Archives you will find that I found great disbelief in the entire Margaret story.
Laurel wrote, "To say flatly that the Knights Templar ceased to exist very quickly
after the Pope's order is to defy belief."
As an organised group the Templar ceased to exist with the death of deMolay.
So we have a mystery wrapped in enigma shrouded by the wonderful theory just because it isn't recorded it is history.
Laurel wrote "These men believed in their cause so deeply that they would hurl themselves into the path of destruction on the battlefield. How could this fervor be
shut off with a flimsy piece of paper. We have read, for instance, in
western China, the Jewish and Christian faiths survived for many generations
in the secret places of each persons heart. Will we ever wipe out the Ku
Klux Klan? It survives despite everything it seems ,then reappears in some
Where and when did the Templars reappear?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Spirit One Email" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: 5 more proofs and more