[an error occurred while processing this directive]
>So to weave a thread on topic; >If the Black Douglas' mother was a Sinclair, and 2 Sinclairs were with him >in Spain; were they cousin and Uncle to him? Good question. Does anyone know? Lena? Niven? >And do the Douglas' hold part of the Sinclair story? Probably. One thing I learned in my immediate family's research on my paternal line is that many things that the direct family may have thought too obvious to write down may have been recorded by relatives, in their letters, deeds, lawsuits, books, and wills. >You know I have not been satisfied that they went fighting the moors as a >distraction going to Jerusalem. >The Bruce's heart was off-course for family business Sinclair/Douglas stuff! Was it? According to Barbour's Bruce, Bruce merely asked that his heart be taken on Crusade; he said nothing about Jerusalem. After all, he died in 1329 and the Last Crusade was over in 1272. The Spanish action against the Moors in 1330 was the best thing going for Bruce's purpose. This also fits the Sinclair Crusading tradition of that William Sinclair's son William Sinclair dying in Lithuania in 1358 crusading with the Teutonic nights, ``The Pope initiated a crusade to the Baltics, whcich was considered to be equal before God as the crusade to Jerusalem. '' http://www.vernet.lv/VT/history.html and his son Henry Sinclair probably being on King Peter's Crusade in 1365, http://sinclair.quarterman.org/kingpeterscrusade.html Not to mention of course their ancestor Henry the Holy being on the First Crusade. And when infidels weren't available, English would do: William (1240-1297) won the battle of Roslin Moor in 1303; his son Henry (1275-1336) fought at Bannockburn and signed the Declaration of Arbroath, and it was his son William who died at Teba with Douglas and Bruce's heart, fighting the Moors. >Any comment? Let me quote from the preface to the second edition of The Baltic Crusade by William Urban: ``It is an unfortunate fact that until recently most scholars who mentioned the crusades discussed only those expeditions to the Holy Land that ended in 1291. This circumstance may have been due to practical considerations in writing and publishing, but just as often it seems to have originated in a narrow definition of "the crusades." Be that as it may, the crusading movement was not confined to the Near East. Crusades were declared against heretics, pagans, and political opponents, as well as Saracens. They were organized and led by popes, kings, nobles, hermits, peasants, children, and excommunicants. They were organized against enemies of the Roman Church in Greece, Spain, Germany, Bohemia, the Balkans, and Russia, as well as in the Holy Land and North Africa--for the purposes of conquest, booty, and revenge, as well as for protection of the holy places. ``In short, the crusading spirit and the crusading movement affected every social class and every generation from 1100 to 1500 and virtually every geographic location accessible to Europeans. Nor did the crusades cease to be a factor in European politics with the end of the military expeditions. The Renaissance papacy cannot be understood without considering the financial and political difficulties imposed by recent Turkish expansion at the expense of enemies both in the Islamic world and Christendom. The Spanish conquest of the New World also exhibited the spirit of the crusades and lacked only the formality of a papal bull and the assent of historians to be called by such a name. From Clermont to Tannenberg, from the cloisters to the courts, these four centuries were a crusading era.'' http://department.monm.edu/history/urban/books/Baltic_Crusade_Introduction.htm And a dying king who had not gone on crusade would consider that a failing in his duty that he would want to rectify. Just ran across a citation for this book: ``Eric Christiansen, The Northern Crusades Penguin USA, 1998, 320 Pages [2nd Edition], Paperback. A fascinating, well written account of the north-eastern part of European history that is often missing in most books. While this is a book filled with historic facts and dates, it is written in such a manner that it is easy for even the non student to read and understand. Once started, the book was hard to put down. It answered so many questions of who, why and how the current nationalites emerged. So much was revealed about the people and cultures of the area. NEW $11.16'' Has anybody read it? Does it mention any relatives? Here's an amusing web page: ``Hier die Geschichte des Clans Sinclair, der früher Caithness, das Land unserer Lairds of Camster, Glencairn und John O'Groats beherrschte. ``... ``c 1358 Lithuanian Crusade William Sinclair, Baron of Rosslyn and father of Prince Henry Sinclair dies in Lithuania crusading with the Teutonic Knights ``... ``5 November 1999 Malcolm 20th Earl of Caithness and Peter 7th Earl of Rosslyn ``Elected Representative Hereditary Peers in House of Lords reform. John 3rd Viscount Thurso does not stand in election ``1. Januar 2000 Britain Travel Peter Storm Der Clan Sinclair beginnt, seine Herrschaft über das Land durch die vielen Lairds of Glencairn, Camster und John O'Groats zu verlieren.'' Apparently somebody in Germany likes Sinclairs. Come to think of it, I've observed a fascination with Sinclairs in Belgium, too, including tours to Scotland that feature Rosslyn. >Regards >Bruce John S. Quarterman <jsq@quarterman.org> [ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org [ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html