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

Deaf Ears

Various timeline speak of the sources from which they obtained material only with the name of the person who has or purported to have read or collected the material. These observations will fall on deaf ears.

Here from the Trust timeline;
1123 William Sinclair of Corbeil Created Archbishop of Canterbury and gives as reference 'Dictionary of English Church History' A Dictionary of English Church History (9th ed. rev. 1970) the presumption is this the reference they are referring to or Dictionary of English Church History (Ollard 1948) perhaps it is A Dictionary of English Church History, 1912 None of these Dictionaries mention William de Corbeil as a Sinclair

There is only one petite problem none of these three sources refer to William of Corbeil as William Sinclair of Corbeil.

The same timeline states "1135 King Stephen of England Crowned by Archbishop William Sinclair of Canterbury" it cites the Dictionary of English Church History and fail to mention Sinclair.  The Dictionary of English Church History (9edtion rev.1970) cited states "Stephen, King of England crowned on Christmas Day 1135 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, William of Corbeil Accession 1123 AD d.21 Nov 1136 at Westminster Abbey ."

French genealogical records state; William of CORBEIL  Male. Mother and father unknown Wife: (unknown) Child:         Regnault. His 10-Great Grandchildren: include   Thomas (Sir) PESHALL ,  Isabel de PESHALL ,  Thomas (Sir) SWINNERTON. I do not know how we make Sinclair out of this pedigree.  The authors, researchers and editors of the various Dictionaries were unable to do so.

". But in any case the significance of the ordinary legatine appointment, first associated with the person of William de Corbeil (d. 1136), is unmistakable. It was, as Dean Stephens truly observes, "an acknowledgment of the supreme authority of the Pope. The primate shone with a reflected glory, his preeminence was not inherent but derivative" (Hist. of the Eng. Church, II, 142)."
Another jewel is Eudo St. Clair Colchester Castle and authoritatively references the guidebook. Taint so. The guidebook fails to mention any Sinclair (St Clair) and states;

"The Castle was originally built by Eudo Dapifer, within 10 years of the Norman Conquest, on the site of the Roman Temple of Claudius, but since the 16th century the Castle has been a ruin, a library and a gaol for witches"

The citation of a reference should say what the reference says. The trust guideline is so flawed that it can only be referred to for its amusement value. The primary authorities on which it relies are St Clairs of the Isles, Morrison and Andrew Sinclair.  Morrison's fast and loose way with facts is well known.  St Clairs of the Isles should only quoted when no other source is available and then carefully.

Has anyone ever read any of Andrew Sinclair books?  I like my authors to at least make complete sentences when they write. How can Andrew Sinclair state with a straight face "c630 Guillermus (William) Sancto Claro The beheaded Saint William St. Clair from Kent still has his healing well at St. Clair-sur-Epte in Normandy" Every reference  to Clair is 884AD. Even the trust timeline contradicting it self states further down the date 884 AD. Anyone have any idea who Guillermus (William) Sancto Claro is? Must be confusion on my part.