[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sinclair Timeline
My dear Sinclair,
'Verily thou art a Solomon come to judgement' for referring me to yet another
lorryload of lunacy maquerading as a Sinclair Timeline on the Sinclair Trust
website., You should be thrice blessed and placed above the salt.
Your gentle irony led me to peruse this dubious document with some care and,
not only did I find that St Clair was somehow reincarnated in reverse by a
couple of centuries (becoming a Sinclair in the copurse of this magical and
mysterious process - God has bestowed wondrous gifts on the devout and the
blessed) but Catherine de St Clair is said to have married Hugh de Payen at
the Temple of Solomon at the founding of the Knights Templar.
The scenario for this particular episode obviously ran something like this:
Hugh de Payen, having taken vows of celibacy and poverty before the Patriarch
of Jerusalem, then uses the same clerical gentleman's good offices to marry a
rich heiress - quite a neat way to get around the rules and vows he had just
Was he a graduate of Sandhurst I wonder? Learning there, as all good officers
and gentlemen do, that 'Rules are made for the guidance of the wise and the
strict observance of fools and idiots'.
Frankly while, in my days of innnocence and apprentiship, I once believed that
Catherine and Hugh were married. Deeper investigation sowed the seeds of doubt
and disbelief. Not one shred of evidence has ever been found that supports of
this claim. No authentic historical document records it or attests to its
validity. The fevered imagination of Henry Lincoln is the only 'original'
source I can find. That alone gives serious grounds for doubt.
However, the idea that a devout Christian Knight who has just taken a vow of
celibacy would then promptly break it in one of the most sacred palces in the
Holy Land, simply beggars belief.
If this famous couple were actually married - which I very much doubt - it
would have been long before Hugh took his vows. In order to then take such
vows, a married man would have had to obtain a dispensation from Pope or
Bishop. Needless to say no evidence of such a dispensation exists.
One famous English aphorism states 'Those who do not learn from history are
condemned to repeat it' What chance then does any credulous reader have, who
swallows the innaccuracy and fabrication purporting to be history on either
published in the Sinclair Timelines mentioned in the last couple of Days?
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, firstname.lastname@example.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html