Re: Jeff's New Article

["Spirit One Email" <laurel@spiritone.com>]

Dear Jeff,
    I would suggest some  corrections in your article.  On page 43, 1st
column you say that Arthur Sinclair (He was always known as Arthur St. Clair
but was born a Sinclair.  He chose to spell it that way.), was descended
from Sir William Sinclair (should be St. Clair) who built Rosslyn.
  Then you speak of this William as a descendant of a St. Clair who led the
Bannockburn Templar charge.  This would be Bishop William St. Clair born
around 1300 whose brother was Henry, Baron of Rosslyn.
    But then you say this Bishop William was a descendant of Henry (should
be St. Clair again)  who organized the voyage to the New World in 1398.
    This Prince Henry was born 1345 so Bishop William b. about 1300 could
not be his descendant.
    Here is the order going backwards.

*William who built Rosslyn Chapel
*Henry
*Prince Henry
*William who m. Isabella heir to Earldom of Orkney.  He died in Lithuania
*William who died in Spain.  He died before his father so did not inherit
the title
*Henry brother to Bishop William.  (Henry was close in age to R. Bruce)
*William de St. Clair
*etc.
The name of St. Clair was used by all of these men until William of Rosslyn
chapel's 3rd son, William inherited the Earldom of Caithness and then the
name of Sinclair began to be used in Caithness.   The Barons of Rosslyn
continued to use the name of St. Clair.
    You just can't arbitrarily call everyone Sinclair just became now we
have invented this Clan Sinclair years afterwards.  Even now, we aren't all
Sinclairs.  People descended from the Rosslyn St. Clairs must be pretty
unhappy about this attitude.
   Have you read "The Knights Templar and their Myth" by Peter Partner?  I
read it years ago when I didn't know any of the Templar/St. Clair story.  A
few months back I was in favor of supporting the idea of the Templar
movement living on but now upon reading it again and understanding much
more, I have changed my mind.  This author was very thorough and gives very
valid historical documentation that supports the idea of their disbandment.

Then he devotes much of his book showing how various people hungry for
money, fame and power created spinoffs many years later.  Each claimed to
posses some mysterious "secret".  There was not just one "Templar" line.
That in itself, proves that most were fakes.

    I wish all of you who have any questions about the Templars would read
this book.  Some of you think you can get all your information off the
internet.  That is false.  You know there are no history police that will
force only truthful entries.  You have to read books to get an indepth
understanding of a subject.   Look at the references.  Books are the closest
we can get to the real facts.  People can make up references on the internet
but it would be highly unusual for that to happen in a book that would be
viewed, for sure, by many knowlegeble people on that subject.   There is
more acountability involved with book writing.  You have to read books,
people, but even then make sure there is documentation for the "facts".
As ever,
Laurel





----- Original Message -----

> Dear All:
>
> The cover story of the upcoming May/June issue of Atlantis Rising (Issue
> 33) is my article titled "The Star-Spangled Banner and America's Secret
> Origins."  It mentions four Sinclairs, and the Sinclair cock, and can
> now be freely downloaded as a PDF file at http://www.atlantisrising.com
>
> The article is Part II of a trilogy which began with my "Battle of
> Bannockburn" piece, which ran in issue 31 (still available as a PDF
> download from the AR site).

[ 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