Dear Tim:
If Henry was a Templar, card-carrying or only in his most secret heart, it is
no use saying he wasn't simply because it gives the "academics" cause to loudly
snicker and do quick damage to Henry's reputation.
Lack of a single "scrap of evidence" (tho' the university dons will continue to
hoot and holler as boys will) does not mean that a "suppressed" order ceased to
exist. After all, there was never a dinosaur until one was dug up (and then I
think it was called a dragon for a while). Nowadays there are many dinosaurs,
and some of us even continue to keep a warm place in our hearts for the
dragons. It lets us understand the ancient tapestries better, and the minds
that moved the fingers that made them. Perhaps we are fools, but those same
dons will hoot and holler whenever the subject of "chakras" comes up, too.
What does THAT sort of association do to the reputation of our Henry, and
should we even care?
I understand your argument, tho', and agree that whenever anything is brought
to the debating table that is "non-traditional," the traditionalists see the
chance to gain the upper hand, and usually take it. I say let them. The Truth
WILL (eventually) conquer all, and it will be quite soon.
It will perhaps be more useful to us all, for a while, to bring our arguments
forward into the here and now.
There is a 20TH-CENTURY graveslab within the ruined kirk at Temple, in the
style of what Andrew Sinclair would call a grailstone, which covers the corpse
of a woman -- Beatrix Dundas of Arniston. Since you posted a while ago the
idea that the "female" line of succession is more important than the "male," I
would think you may have some important thoughts to share on the matter. There
is also my translation of the inscription below the belfry to consider.
Although the stone has been there for centuries, my translations (plural) seem
to support theories that you and Niven have also held for quite some time. The
"academics" have decided my translations not worth commenting on -- but you may
hold a different opinion. If you do, I'd like to hear it -- as would many on
this list, I'm sure.
I will say this about the academics, tho': If they had seen my translations as
being full of holes, I think they would have been quick to pounce. They are
famous for it. It gives them the chance to hoot and holler as boys will. I
find THEIR silence quite comforting. My theory about the Battle of Bannockburn
has been bouncing about for over a month, and still the academics are silent.
Perhaps I am on to something! What think?
All Best!
Jeff
PS: The Louisburg Cannon is really a very SMALL piece of evidence, and so may
mean nothing, as you've surmised. Why would one drop in the ocean what one
would not cast before swine? The important evidence is the evidence that was
LEFT, not the evidence that was DROPPED. The company of Cistercians, on the
other hand, isquite another kettle of fish altogether. The Cistercians still
exist (they have not been "suppressed"), and I have found them quite
NON-forthcoming when I've asked them a simple question. I'll keep that
question secret for now.
Tim Wallace-Murphy wrote:
> 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:
>
[ Excess quotations omitted. ]
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html