Dear Sinclair,
Why the puzzling plethora of 'princes'!
As to Henry's expedition to America. In my humble opinion, the evidence
although circumstantial, is overwhelming and I for one have no doubt that he
was there. Not once but at least twice. However it must be said that his
voyages, remarkable though they were, left no discernible mark on the
historical record other than the Zeno Narrative, the oral traditions of the
Mi'qmaq people and some fascinating carvings on both sides of the Atlantic.
As to the mis-identification of the Mi'qmaq flag, I dealt with that some
months ago and have no intention of going over old ground on that particular
score.
The mythologising of Henry's voyage has only given ammunition to its many
critics. The suggestion that Henry had Templars with him and sailed in Templar
ships is pure wishful thinking and nothing else.
The Templar order was suppressed in 1314; the last verfiable account of
Templar shipping refers to the Templar fleet which vanished mysetriously from
French ports in 1307 - allegedly for Scotland and there are indeed some strong
indications that Scotland was in fact the eventual destination of some of the.
However, in the age of wooden shippping it hardly credible by any intelligent
student that ships that, by the time of Henry's voyage, would have been over
eighty years old, would have survived at all - much less in sufficient numbers
to be described as a fleet. As to Templar Treasure being transported over the
Atlantic by Earl Henry and buried in the Money Pit at Oak Island - I treat
that asertion with the respect it truly deserves, namely complete contempt.
You see no connection between these assertions for a very simple reason -
there is none.
As to the similarities of the belief systems of the Cathars and the Templars,
I have dealt with them at some length elsewhere, namely in 'Rosslyn Guardian
of the Secrets of the Holy Grail' and in 'Rex Deus'. Religious beliefs arising
from the same root system can nonetheless be very different in shape, size,
growth and theology.
The bizarre fact that neither the Templars nor the Knights Hospitaller took
any substantive part in the Albigensian Crusade has puzzled all who study the
subject. Both were military orders dedicated to the protection of Christianity
in its numerous crusades against the non-belivers. They fought in the Holy
Land, in Spain, in Portugal and in the Baltic States. Yet, in this particular
Crusade officially called by Pope Innocent III, they remained mostly inactive.
Indeed both orders have been accused of giving refuge to Cathars.
The official explanation given by both orders (who often fought each other and
could rarely agree on anything as simple as to where to have lunch) was
phrased in a suspiciously similar vein by both. They stated that their
possessions in the Languedoc were mostly non-fortified and not suitable to be
used as wartime bases. Furthermore both orders claimed that the deeds of
donation which had gifted them the lands in the Languedoc, had expressly
forbidden their use as bastions of war. These concepts are as strange as this
sudden agreement between two rival orders was out of character. The reader
must use their own discernment and wit to devise a credible explanation for
these military orders sudden and unanimous period of pacifism.
As to the comparitive stature of Earl William and his grandfather Earl Henry
- once again I agree with you sir - but who are you and I among so many?
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