An Earl is entitled to be know as a prince. I have been informed by the
Lyon Clerk. I have admitted the I was wrong to question 'prince' Henry's
title. I now refer to all Earls no longer as "my Lord" but as most "my most
high and puissant prince"
As the flag goes my observation was only an observation. It called for no
reply. The information is well know to all who read this list.
The strange of the lack of participation in the Albigensian Crusade by the
Templars needs examination.
However Wallace-Murphy before you get you knickers in a twist You should
take a look at the Clan Sinclair Trust site it includes such jewels as "
"At the battle of Hastings there were nine St. Clair knights who fought with
distinction there and are mentioned in the Abbey Roll."
Look dispassionately at this statement. First the Abbey Roll is know as
"the Battle Abbey Rolls" secondly they contain only the name of Richard de
Santo Claro the other 8 were forgotten to be mentioned in dispatches. Now we
know they One is on the official roll. What are the names of the 8 whose
names were transcribed with invisible ink but 'fought with distinction' and
are not mentioned.?
The same time line says "William Sinclair 7th Duke of Normandy aided by nine
Sinclair generals defeats Harald and becomes King of England and The
Conqueror"
So it would follow the 8 Sinclair knights directed by 9 Generals fought at
Hasting. At the armed Sinclair picnic the fate of Britain and Europe was
decided.
Ah! The plot thickens the time line continues with other silly, nay stupid
statements;
It states "c 630 Guillermus (William) Sancto Claro The beheaded Saint
William St. Clair from Kent still has his healing well at St. Clair-sur-Epte
in Normandy."
Clair was beheaded in 884. The well is alleged to have sprung from his
flowing blood. He was not named William and was not St Clair and he
definitely was not over 254 years of age at the time of his beheading,
The same timeline states that in 845 Clair of Rye, England Born. Later
martyred in France Was this guy beheaded twice?
The strange saga continues according to this time line, which must have been
conceived in ignorance and consummated in spite. The statement is made that
between 742-812 Charlemagne King of the Franks and then Emperor of the
Romans. It was from him that Margaret Atheling received the Holy Rood - the
'True Cross' This statement was made by an astute observer having knowledge
of a Mosaic at Houses of Parliament London the same timeline says "She had
a piece of the True Cross 'Holy Rood'. In the Houses of Parliament it says
'given to her ancestor by Charlemagne' but this is probably symbolic."
O, judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts
And men have lost their reason" (Julius Santo Claro Caesar).
by William St Clair Shakespeare
My statements concerning William take joy in your agreement. We are kind
sir, not a minority but a majority of two.
Sinclair
----- Original Message -----
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html