Dear Jeff,
I find it amusing, if a little irritating at times, to be accused by the
academic historians of beeing too reliant on 'alternative sources',
mythology and legend on the one hand, and being accused of being too
pedantic, authoritative and 'academic by my firemnds on the Sinclair list on
the other. I suspect that this dichotomy indicates that I have the balance
about right.
As to discrediting Earl Henry's story, what else can be the result when
claims are made that:
a) he was member of an order suppressed several decades before he was born.
and
b) that he was accompanied on his voyages to America by a number of members
of that order and Cistercian monks when there is not one scrap of evidence
that can reasonable lead to that conclusion.
As to the so-called 'Louisburg Cannon' Andrew was in grave error to claim
that this piece of ordinance was manufactured only in Venice and in such a
limited timescale. It was manufactured in both France and Portugal for
nearly two hundred years. Furthermore, if Eral Henry was the sole source of
this type of armamnet found in mainland America, he ws bloody careless with
his ordinance as I know of something like thirty other cannon of the
samemanufacture found in a variety of locations n North America - all
associated with areas of French or Portugese influence.. I think the case
for Henry's alleged visit to Louisburg is an example of wishful thinking on
Andrew's part.
Best wishes
Tim
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html