Grandmasters

Sinclairs and Templars

One of the reasons for this association, at least in the popular mind, is the 1983 book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which purports to trace the bloodline of the Sinclairs back to the most significant religious figure in western history. A more sober and more recent book, The Labyrinth Of The Grail, traces the links between the Knights Templar, the Masons, and the Sinclairs.

Sinclairs certainly were Masons, even for a long time hereditary Grand Masters of the Masons in Scotland. The Masons were quite likely a continuation of the Knights Templar. Thus there is some verifiable association.

—jsq

Later Grandmasters

``KNIGHTS TEMPLARS.

``List of Grand Masters, from the Death of Jacques de Molay.

``Order was not annihilated either by the bull of Clement V. or the despotism of Philip IV., or the treachery and meanness of Edward II., but is due to the action of De Molay himself, who in anticipation of his fate, A. D. 1313, appointed John Mark Larmenius as his successor in office. From that time to the present regular and uninterrupted succession of Grand Masters has been maintained, as follows:''

[See next column to the right.]

Unquote P.

The Knights Templars & The Complete History of the Masonic Knighthood.

Regards,
Sinclair

``(From Mackey's Lexicon of Freemasonry.)

John Mark Larmenius	1313
Thomas Theobald Alexandrinus;	otherwise
Francis Thomas Theobald	1324
Arnold de Braque	1340
John de Claremont	1349
Bertrand du Guesclin	1357
John Arminiacus	1381
Bernard Arminiacus	1392
John Arminiacus	1419
John de Croy	1451
Bernard Imbault	1472
Robert Lenoncourt	1478
Galeatius de Salazar	1497
Philip Chabot	1516
Gaspard de Galtiaco Tavanensis	1544
Henry de Montmorency	1574
Charles de Valois	1615
James Ruxellius de Granceio	1651
James Henry, Duc de Duras	1681
Philip, Duke of Orleans	1705
Louis Augustus Bourbon	1724
Louis Henry Bourbon Conde	1737
Louis Francis Bourbon Conty	1741
Louis Hercules Timoleon, Due de Cosse Brissac.	1776
Claude M. R. Chevillon	1792
Bernard Raymund Fabre Palaprat	1804
Sir William Sidney Smith	1838 Died 1840

''

The so-called Charter of Larmenius

Dear Friends,

I regret to inform you that in the opinion of most scholars,both academic and esoteric, the so-called Charter of Larmenius is a forgery and the list of alleged Grand-masters created to give it some semblance of authenticity, is completely spurious.

If you wish to trace an unbroken line of transmission of templar teaching and ideals, look to the St Clairs of Roslin, who, as Grand-masters of the Hard and Soft Guilds of Scotland, passed this vital stream of knowledge to the true sucessors of Templarism, the craft of Freemasonry.

Best wishes

Tim

Support your claims, please

attn: Tim, Don, Sinclair, et all

Occasionally, one comes across some information regarding some aspect of the Sinclair web and someone claims it is based on forged information.

Some claim that the Zeno narratives are fakes, some claim that the documents that surfaced in the French Archives earlier this century regarding the Priory of Sion are forgeries. (Sat morning grammar, sorry)

I find that whenever speaking about Prince Henry's voyage there are those who cry "prove it"...

However, I have not been able to find out who determined that the Sion douments were fakes and by what process - and no one seems to know...they just claim that they are fakes...

So this Grandmaster List is a fake...by what process was that determined...I noticed that you said that "most" scholars feel that they are fakes...so obviously, as in the case of Henry's Voyage, there is doubt...

What Don is so eloquently asking is: says who exactly? Others may have phrased it differently but the questions stands...

I am on this list to further my knowlege...it is the responsibility of those who join groups to teach as well as learn...I am certain that Tim has gained valuable information and insight from being on this list...how about contributing on this discussion?

I understand that you are writing a book about Prince Henry's Voyage..."Most" scholars feel that it never took place...

If "most scholars feel" is sufficient reason for you to disregard this GM list...why is it not enough to disregard Henry's Voyage...?

And how say the highly placed Templars who monitor this list?

Good topic for a weekend debate - I loved the Stone of Scone one, too...

Got a picture of that rock, Niven? Keep up the great work...

be at peace, Sinclairs

rob

The Nature of these Web Pages

Please note that just because something appears in these web pages doesn't mean it is or is not true. There is a lot of speculation in these web pages. Where possible, I try to present both sides of any controversial issue. Except in occasional interjections such as this one, I prefer to present topics in the original words of those who have posted messages about them.

Everyone please remember that history is largely a matter of opinion. I do try to select texts that are coherent and make sense, but that does not mean that they are necessarily true. Where there is some clear consensus that I can detect as to the historical facts, I do try to present that consensus. But remember, I am just a scribe; I do not claim to be a historian, and I am certainly not an expert in all (if any) of the topic areas covered in these web pages. Some of the people quoted in these web pages are experts in their subject areas; some of them are the foremost such experts in the world. But even they can have differences of opinion.

For that matter, many of these texts are questions, not assertions. Even the texts that are not phrased as questions often have value in being treated as questions. Sometimes this method results in significant new research that changes some people's opinions, as in the Argyll page.

That said, I strongly urge everyone to cite their sources, and I include sources wherever possible.

—jsq

The Sources

Dear Labehotiere,

While I will happily give references to any assertions or statements of fact or opinion I make, may I enquire - in the light of your comment 'do not come to the debate' - what work have you had published, and by whom?

If you can read French, may I suggest a good starting point would be the 'Cahier d'etude' on the subject of the 'Transmission of Larmenius' published two years ago by the 'Centre des Etudes et des Recherches Templieres' in Campagne-sur-Aude.This lists a good cross section of scholarly comment on this dubious document.

Among serious authors who have commented in recent years, may I list Peter Partner, (The Knights Templar and their Myth - Oxford University Press 1981) who claims the document was forged by Dr. Ladru in the late seventeenth, early eighteenth century. John Robinson (The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry - Born in Blood - Century 1990) who states that it is now proven to be a blatent forgery. Baigent and Leigh (The Temple and the Lodge - Jonathan Cape 1989) who are non-committal. Lastly, Knight and Lomas on the one hand and Picknet on Prince on the other, who both simply assume its veracity asit is used to support the central themes of their works, namely The Second Messiah (K & L) and The Templar Revelation ( P & P).

Thus scholarly authorswith good reputations either condemn it, or at best equivocate, while other, more speculative authors pushing highly arguable themes, sometimes endorse it.

What does the document itself tell us? Rather a lot. The original can be inspected in Mark Masons Hall in London. It is in cipher, which upon translation reveals not the clumsy, ecclesiastical Latin of the medieval era to be found on so many charters, documents and deeds from that time, but a far more polished and scholarly form of the language used in universities and medical schools in eighteenth century Europe. According to most scholars who have commented on the prose style used, it is quite obviously the product of a seventeenth or eighteenth century mind, well steeped in the masonic lore of that time and bears no relationship whatsoever to the phraseology current in the early years of the fourteenth century.

The alleged list of Grandmasters includes among their number, several Princes of the Royal House of Bourbon. Some absolute howlers are made in their alleged titles which quite obviously indicate that no-one from that social class had anything to do with the document whatsoever much less became a Grandmaster repsonsible for it..

According to the consensus among the scholars who have studied this document, the most favoured candidate for the position of forger, is not Dr Bernard Fabre-Palaprat who did most to promote it, but a certain colleague of his a Dr Ladru.

Therefore my dear challenger, the debate is on. I have responded to your challenge - now, where are your proofs of theis document's authenticity - with sources please?

Best wishes

tim

Mon cher Labehotierre,

Touche.

I regret to inform you that the alleged listof Gandsmasters in the Larmenius document is entrely spurious. However, as I mentioned in my first posting on this subject, there is a creditable form of transmssion of Templar thought and tradition that is to be found in Scotland. This is not restricted to the St Clair connection via the guilds and laterfreemasonry, but can also be found in private neo-masonic orders kept alive within the confines of certain families,e.g. the Montgomeries. One way or another there are strong indications that the order was kept alive in Scotland and later became manifest in certain of the Templar degrees of Scoottish Freemasonry.

If there are any modern Templar orders with some degree of authentic continuity with the original order, they too are to be found in Scotland. howevere there is some dispute about this and, at the moment at least, I am open-minded pending some degree of proof.

In order to assist your research, the adress of CERT is as follows:

Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Templieres
Boite Postale 42
11260 Esperaza
[France]
Tel. no. 00 33 4 68 74 01 30

Best wishes

Tim