With
 Easter fast approaching us I would like the families thought as

to the question of "do we descend from Christ or not".All have

researched this and have read page's and page's of other people's

thought.What do you say cousin Sinclair's?

Shawn Douglas

Here we see Mel the Roseneck in the robes of a Knight Templar. Is

that bearded chap, Ian Sincliar?

http://www.clansinclairsc.org/smotj.htm

Some Sinclairs claim Henry Sinclair came to America before Columbus .

Did anyone stay, a liniage perhaps that awaited the holy mother

vessel bloodline to return so they could have a reunion on this Holy

Roseneck Ground?

http://www.sciway.net/maps/cnty/union.html

http://sinclair.quarterman.org/us-sc.html

"SINCLAIR, John W. spouse Rosamond S born 1906 died 1983      -

Veterans Flag

SINCLAIR, Rosamond S spouse John W. born 1911 died 1993 "

http://www.angelfire.com/folk/scsites/browns_creek_area.htm

http://sinclair.quarterman.org/ca-ns.html

http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/sc/greenville/church/mtncreek12.jpg

http://www.clansinclairsc.org/melclan.htm

http://www.clansinclairsc.org/descendants_of_john_sinclair.htm

http://www.clansinclairsc.org/melclan.htm

http://www.clansinclairsc.org/DescendJohnNotes.htm

http://www.clansinclairsc.org/sinclairline.htm

http://www.clansinclairsc.org/records.htm

http://www.clansinclairsc.org/smotj.htm

http://www.sciway.net/maps/cnty/union.html

http://sinclair.quarterman.org/us-sc.html

http://www.angelfire.com/folk/scsites/browns_creek_area.htm

http://sinclair.quarterman.org/ca-ns.html

In Medieval times the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, was known as

Santa Maria della Rosa, and according to a 19th century antiquary,

Godfrey Higgins, in his magnum opus Anacalypsis Vol. II,

1836: "Jesus was called the Rose - the rose of Sharon". This may

suggest that Jesus was of a rose lineage, hence a possible

genealogical connection with the Clan St. Clair of Roslin -

Roseline? It is interesting to note from the signature of Sir

William Sinclair, a former Earl of Rosslyn, that he signed his
 name

St. Clair of Roselin. Sir William Sinclair (St. Clair) was referred

to as the "last of the Roslins" and his death in 1778

terminated "the lordly line of high St. Clair." Furthermore, ancient

Scottish charters were witnessed by a certain Roger de Roselyn (my

italics).

>    Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:53:21 -0000

> >    From: "rpcv.geo" <thesnowleopard@...>

> > Subject: Re: Paula Stiles, Kate Clinton and Rosslyn Fantasies

>  

>  

> > This sounds like an attempt to show that William of St Clair had

no

> > connection to the Temple in 1430 by claiming that his ancestors

had

> > a negative connection to the Temple in
 1309.

>  

> I hate to agree with Paul Smith (I REALLY, really do) but he's

dead on

> here. Paula, just look at what you wrote above. The only people

that had

> even the most obscure connection to the Templars in 1430 were the

Knights

> of Christ in Portugal . And even they (obviously) no longer had any

former

> Templars in their ranks by 1430.\

Bill, get a grip and reread my post. I said that Paul needed to

decide which he wanted--a connection between the Sinclairs and the

Templars or not. Because he was basing his claim that there was no

connection on documentation of a negative connection. So, obviously,

there *was* a connection: that the Sinclairs in the early fourteenth

century testified against the Temple (which makes sense as they were

living just down the road from a Templar preceptory; nothing

sinister about that). Now, does this argue against Sinclair trying

to make a connection between himself and the Templars nearly a

century and a half later? Well...not really, because we don't have

any evidence in the period between those two events.

So, what Paul is arguing (that there is no connection between

Sinclair and the Templars) remains unproven. All we can say is that

there is no evidence of such a connection, which is not the same

thing as saying that there is no connection. Someday, once we get a

better idea of what Sinclair was thinking (maybe), they may become

the same thing, but they are not the same thing
 right now. It's too

dangerous to argue from negative evidence when there is so little of

it. Right now, we know that the Sinclairs testified against their

neighbors the Templars during the Trial and that over a century

later, one of the Sinclairs' descendants built a chapel a few miles

away from one of the Temple 's former preceptories. Paul is having
 no

success in creating a direct cause and effect between those two

events and neither are you.

> Prior to 1982, no Sinclair ever made any claim regarding a Sinclair

> connection to the Templars. Furthermore, no writing prior to 1982

ever

> claimed a link between Roslyn Chapel and the Temple . What makes

this such

> an easy proof is that the Sinclairs were definitely writing about

> themselves prior to 1982. They have been shameless self-promoters

ever

> since they tried to claim hereditary hegemony over Freemasonry in

the

> 18th century. There are oodles of Sinclair writings to examine. In

NONE

> OF THEM is there the least reference to the Knights Templar--until

after

>
 1982.

Again, this is arguing from negative evidence. Worse, it's arguing

from modern negative evidence to try to read the mind of someone who

lived nearly six centuries ago.

>  

> Paula, you are going down the wrong path here. William St. Clair

had no

> connection to the Templars. The supposed connection is, quite

simply,

> another Sinclair lie.

See above. Arguing a negative is risky because it's so bloody hard

to prove. And you always risk the possibility that some new piece of

evidence will turn up that proves you wrong. Is it probable that

there is no direct connection because the Sinclairs, who were as

shameless in their self-promotion as any other Renaissance Scottish

lords, never mentioned such a connection until modern times (that we

know of)
 at a moment when it was convenient to them? Sure. Is that

conclusive evidence? Unfortunately, no. It's like arguing that

paranoid schizophrenics' enemies are always imaginary. Except that

I've heard a first-hand story or two from psych professionals about

patients who were admitted with that diagnosis and turned out to be

exactly what they said they were. "Probably" and "definitely"
 don't

conflate here.

No way. Templars, for that matter, were not the only

> knights wearing crosses on their garments.

Not initially (it originally being a symbol from the
 First Crusade),

but it did become their order's official symbol after the 1140s, by

papal decree. This appears to have cut down quite a bit on its use

elsewhere, since the Templars were rather ferocious in going after

people who wore their uniform and behaved badly (for example, see

regulation 68 of the Rule). It tarnished their reputation.

Your main problem here seems to be that you are trying to argue two

different things as the same thing: 1. that there was no connection

between Sinclair and the Templars and 2. that people did not seek a

connection between themselves and the Temple after the Temple 's

suppression. The problem is that you and Paul are already claiming a

connection, but it is so distant and brief that its influence on the

Sinclair who built Rosslyn Chapel seems faint, if it existed at all.

As far as 2. is concerned, due to the popularity of chivalric orders

in the 14th and 15th centuries and the confusion surrounding the

disposition of the Order's property and members (the Hospitallers

did not get actual possession of the property until 1318), lay

people did continue to claim connections to the Temple well into the

16th century (and after the early 18th century, but those were

different groups and for different reasons). A document in 15th

century Huesca in northeastern Spain , for example, refers to the

Hospitallers as "Templars". The Knights of Christ in Portugal were

also sometimes referred to as "Templars" well into the 16th century.

These were both groups who absorbed former members of the
 Temple

(the Knights of Christ being, in fact, a well-known example of a

direct successor order to the Temple , like the Knights of Montesa in

the Crown of Aragon) and you only need to read Alan Forey's recent

study on the fall of the Temple in the Crown of Aragon or the very

first page of Malcolm Barber's The New Knighthood to find instances

of Templars who did not absorb well into their new situations and

created problems of identity within the groups they were forced to

join and that these issues continued into the 1330s (by which time,

those Templars had all apparently died off). That's a primary

influence for which we have plain documentation. The secondary
 (let

alone tertiary) influences over the next two centuries of this

transfer of property, brethren and tradition are what are

controversial. We won't get into the documentation about those

Templars who were busted for getting married and trying to lead a

secular life once the matter of their order's disposition was

settled or those who fled arrest.

In terms of the Templar habit, some chivalric groups wore costumes

that were variations on the Templar theme in the 14th and 15th

centuries. It seems disingenuous to claim that after nearly two

centuries of this habit being strongly associated with the Temple ,

nobody would notice some kind of implied connection to the Order.

Does this mean there was a true connection? No. History is rife with

instances of people claiming fictional, or at least iffy, historical

associations to enhance their current reputation. Isn't HBHG a

classic example of that? But it still does not answer the
 question

of whether or not the Sinclair who built Rosslyn was influenced by

these contemporary attempted associations with the Temple and trying

to make his own claims in that respect. However, *if* he was a

member of a chivalric order, the possibility that he was goes up.

This does not suggest that Sinclair was a Templar or had
 any

connection with the actual order, only that it's possible he was

doing much the same thing that his descendants are doing now.

>  

> > Myself, I'm highly skeptical that St Clair had the Templars

directly

> > in mind (or any direct connection, positive or negative) when

> > building Rosslyn Chapel. Karen Ralls in "The Templars and the

Grail:

> > Knights of the Quest" asserts that he was a member of the Order

of

> > the Golden Fleece and the Order of Santiago (pretty standard

> > organizations for a fifteenth century Prince of Orkney to have

> > joined).

>  

> It should be noted here that Karen Ralls is a member of SMOTJ. I

don't

> know if she believes in the myth of the Larmenius Charter. Some

members

> still adamantly claim they are the continuation of the original

Order,

> despite the disclaimers on the SMOTJ web site. My guess is that

when

> their feet are put to the fire, SMOTJ members will admit the myth.

But

> they don't spend a lot of time spreading that around. All their

members

> are suspect in their historical research, IMHO.

This would be why I noted her name and the name of the book and then

said "asserts", no? I'm not making a judgement either way, just

noting that it is a current claim/theory and that from a historical

point of view, it is possible that he was a member of those

chivalric orders. That doesn't mean that he was. I did notice that

Ralls was doing a bait and switch with the sources in that section

that hides the fact that she is not citing primary sources there,

but a secondary source by R. Brydon called "Rosslyn: A History
 of

the Guilds, the Masons and the Rosy Cross" published in 1994 with

the Rosslyn Chapel Trust.

My point, though, was that the supposedly "Templaresque" aspects of

Rosslyn Chapel could as easily be attributed to influences from

contemporary chivalric orders as from the
 no-longer-contemporary

Templars, probably more easily. Sinclair would not have needed to be

a member of these orders to know about the symbols they used. They

weren't exactly private.

>  

> C'mon, Paula. That is no connection at all.

See above. We're talking about six degrees of separation, here.

You're trying to argue a total lack of connection which is

unrealistic in the relatively small cultural (and genetic) milieu of

the late Middle Ages, specifically, the even smaller culture of the

nobility. I'm saying that's unfeasible.

  The Hospital also took in

> Templars, but that was waaaay before William Sinclair built the

> chapel--just as you point out. As for the Golden Fleece, I did not

know

> that they were
 a monastic order, and still don't.

Please. I never said that the Golden Fleece was a military order. It

was a chivalric order. Are you sure that *you* know the difference?

A monastic order is a church order that follows a church-approved

rule (most live in seclusion from the world, but orders
 like the

friars do not).

A military order is a monastic order where the members' main purpose

is military in nature: usually the defense of a specific nature and

involvement in a specific contest with a specific group of non-

Christians (Muslims, pagans, etc.).

A chivalric order is a group of knights who follow certain precepts

of behavior that have little to do with a monastic order. They are

secular laypeople and not part of the church hierarchy, though they

often have a patron saint and may model themselves on a known

military order. A chivalric order is always part-time and makes
 no

direct attempts to control the behavior of its members, let alone

expect them to take the monastic triple vow of poverty, chastity and

obedience. You can also quit a chivalric order; you cannot quit any

kind of monastic order.

There were four international military orders
 (Templars,

Hospitallers, Teutonic Knights and Knights of St Lazarus) and

numerous local military orders ( Santiago , Calatrava, Knights of

Christ, Montesa, Swordbrethren of Livonia , etc.). People often

confuse military orders with chivalric orders because during and

following the Reformation,
 several military orders degenerated into

chivalric orders (Hospitallers) or otherwise secular groups

(Teutonic Knights). However, the two were never the same thing.

  There were many

> knightly orders created to place honors onto the friends of
 the

crown in

> many countries. There is no Templar influence there.

See above. Again, there is certainly an influence if you look at it

from the point of view of people trying to associate themselves with

a crusading military order that was safely past tense. As the
 first

military order, the Templars influenced by example the making of

every other military order (or conversion to a military order like

the Hospitallers) that came after them and the military orders

influenced the origins and creations of the later chivalric orders.

So, in that general sense, those orders would not have existed

without the Temple . I'd call that Templar influence.

Now, if you're looking for direct influence, as I said, the picture

gets too fuzzy to read after the 1330s, at least from what we have

right now. But to argue that the Templars had no influence on later

orders like the Golden Fleece is a bit like saying that
 Charlemagne

had no effect whatsoever on the formation of the Kingdom of France .

  For that matter, we

> have no reason to believe that William Sinclair had anything to do

with

> the design of the chapel. When history tells us that some nobleman

> "built" a chapel, it means that he paid for it and commissioned

> it--nothing more. I'm not saying he didn't make design decisions,

only

> that we have no reason to believe that he did.

This strikes me as a wee bit unlikely. At the very least, he and his

descendants had the final veto vote due to to the fact that Sinclair

commissioned, bought and paid for the chapel. I highly doubt that

anything went in there that the Sinclairs did not, at the very

least, approve. It was the family chapel and the sheer amount of

decoration indicates a certain obsessiveness over the final product

by its ultimate owners. After all, it was supposed to typify what

*they* saw as the perfect chapel. I really can't see the masons who

did the actual construction going to that much trouble without

knowing for a fact that what they put in would stay in. It goes

against human nature to go to that much trouble
 for something in

which you have no personal stake (especially if it meant you might

get fired or worse, not paid for what you'd already done). It would

require concrete proof of influences other than Sinclair and those

of his descendants who completed the construction, I think, to make

those outside influences likely.

>  

> Once again, Paula, I think you are mixing apples and oranges. What

you

> seem to be saying is that, since there is a connection between

William

> Sinclair, the Templars, and Roslyn, then the Green Men must have

some

> Templar significance.

Oy vey. You really are looking for things that aren't there today,

aren't you? Green men are a common feature in medieval churches all

over
 Britain --I've *seen* them. They were popular in Sinclair's

time; that's probably why he put them in there. What I *said* was

that they are on-topic for this list because we find them in Rosslyn

Chapel. Rosslyn Chapel is on-topic for this list because of its

legendary (that means, "not proven", Bill) connections to the

Templars. Therefore, *any* decoration inside the chapel is
 also on-

topic. That does not mean that every (or even any) bit of decoration

inside the chapel has any connection the Templars, themselves, just

that discussion of certain themes of decorations inside the chapel

are on-topic, regardless of whether they are directly connected to

the historical Templars or not. Let's face it: if we only stuck to

actual historical facts about the Templars, as opposed to their

posthumous legends, this list would be both a lot smaller and a lot

quieter.

>  

> Bill Arney

>  

Paula Stiles

drjndee@... wrote:

>  

> Thanks Bill:

>  

> I've said it a million times. After Baigent, Leigh and

Lincoln's "Holy Blood

> - Holy Grail" came out in 1982, everyone just put their brains

on "hold" and

> the book stores have exploded with more fiction passing itself off

as
 history."

After watching Baigent promote his 'Jesus Papers' on T.V., I

understood how he was working the mojo. It's a Ouija board thing,

combined with a séance. The come on is.....

"The Holy Ghost of Jesus is trying to get the truth to you! But,

once again, the Catholic church does not want you to own the truth,

because, you can't handle the truth. I and Jesus believe you can!

Only through me will the truth alas arrive, for I am the medium.

Together we will find a way."

Historically, the Christian church employs the exact same method, in

regards to the conversion of Saint Paul whom Jesus speaks to from

beyond the grave - and no one else!

The whole sponge on a stick, thing, plays into my hands, as I have

been promoting a sound theory that this was used to break the

Nazarite vow Jesus took, more then likely
 when he met John, they

both in their mother's wombs, and now both filled with the Holy

Spirit. It was prophesiezed John would be a Nazarite while in his

mothers womb, till the moment of his death.  When Jesus gives up the

Holy Spirit, DEAD saints rise from their tombs and go into Jerusalem

and talk to LIVING
 people. This is altered later by saying this

happened AFTER Jesus's resurrection, but, the centurion is a witness

to this happening there and then.

Baigent did not cover the raising of the dead in his revelation, and

claims ONLY Jesus overcomes DEATH via a trick. Was this raising of

dead saints a
 cheap trick too? No, it is the fulfilling of Jewish

PROPHECY, and no one wants to know that. Most folk in the West want

to play the game that began with the lie the Jewish priests did not

want the truth to get to the Gentiles, and thus they murdered Jesus,

their God's son they couldn't recognize. But, Gentiles have had no

problem. Gee, I wonder why! Baigent has proven "why".

Jon Presco

27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land

unto the ninth hour.

27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,

saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God,

why hast thou forsaken me?

27:47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said,

This man calleth for Elias.

27:48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled

it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to
 drink.

27:49 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to

save him.

27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up

the ghost.

27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the

top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks
 rent;

         BOM: 4 Nephi 30

27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints

which slept arose,

(27:52-53) When Jesus died, "the graves were opened; and many bodies

of the saints" arose. But they stayed in their graves until Jesus

rose from the dead, when they began to walk around, appearing to

many in Jerusalem .

Is death final?

27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went

into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching

Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they

feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

> Now, with people like Dan Brown cashing in on all this nonsense,

it only gets

> worse.

>  

> The problem is that nowadays too many people don't have the

educational

> backgrounds to be able to tell the sh*# from the shinola.

>  

> There are too many people buying their reading material at grocery

stores.

>  

> S & F,

>  

> Pete Normand

>  

>  

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kate wrote:

"One might allow family background counted for much in ages past in

terms of nobiliary requirements or the fact one was typically born

essentially in
 the Medieval-Renaissance periods into a guild of the

working class, that is, insofar as establishing one's candidacy

initially, or the tendency for families or institutions to maintain

certain long held traditions out of respect or pride, say. Family

background alone, however, simply did not cut it with this corps."

Some have claimed the Knight Templars were at the battle of the

Golden Spurs and helped the weaver's guilds slaughter the flower of

French chivalry that was sent to Flanders by King Philip 1V of

France who would later slaughter Knight Templars. These Flemish

craftsmen and businessmen more then likely learned military skills

while on Crusade. Many Dutch
 Crusaders would migrate to Prussia and

help the Teutonic Knights.

I have found what ammounts to a Family Grail that blonged to Fritz

Rosenmund. Members of the shoemakers guild of Basel were allowed to

drink from the "Rosenmund-Becher" that belonged to Fritz after
 they

were a member for fourty years.

After the victory of the Golden Spurs the guilds began to break away

from church rule and create what has be called true capitalism.

jon

http://www.rougeknights.blogspot.com/

http://www.gerbernzunft.ch/index.php?id=19

Our Guild Treasure

Our
 guild treasure consists of several articles which are taken out

again and again for different ceremonies. During the year these

articles are in the Obhut our historical museum which provides

maintain and of the following articles:

Small lion

Large lions

Coat of arms board

Coat of arms book

Rosenmund cup

Master chain

Banner