Arcadia Discussion Zone

Nor is this site a place to vent your aggression, I hope. You seem to assess the truth of what you say by the amount of negative response you can engender in people. This does not constitute proof of anything other than your own state of mind.

Oh but it is.

Do you think this is a amusing joke?

Tell me why Gellis was murdered?

It's not much of a one-liner.

In the interests of showing you you that i am not attacking you (and that it is all in your head) i will answer the questions you have posed. After this, i am not going to respond to your childish behaviour.

Perhaps you should ask Henry Lincoln from where he got precisely the same quote.

I will. I suspect he will say he read Charpentiers book too. But if he has checked the Latin manuscripts that are extant and the quote appears, this will be excellent news. I suspect all of the repeating of this quote attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux, however, traces back to this book by Charpentier. As i understand it, Charpentiers book was published in around 1966 (if not earlier).

And speaking of context any chance of you addressing the other points I raised in the same posting which you completely ignored.

I didnt ignore them. I just dont accept them as any kind of proof to support your ideas and theories. That is all. I focused on the Bernard of Clairvaux quote because that seemed more tangible, and as i explained before, i wondered if you knew the primary source that this alleged Bernard of Claivaux quote came from. Alas you did not.

But i will answer the points you raised:
Tell me about Sir Charles Warren and the Palestine Exploration Fund of 1860? and the British Enginneers map of 1894?

And what do you want me to tell you? I just dont accept the evidence presented. I can posit myself that the early Templars investigated under the Temple Mount and the other religious holy sites in Jerusalem. Of course they would. It doesnt mean they found anything.

After their return from Palestine the Templars received International status as a Sovereign Order at the Council of Troyes. From this point onwards the Templars received gold and land from kings. Yep methinks we can safely say that the Templars found something.

And why would you think they found something just because land started being donated to them? At the Council of Troyes they were officially recognised, and given their Rule by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. There was also a crisis in these years, and the Order was in danger of falling apart before it had even began. You confuse the rank and file of the Templars with the upper echelons of those who 'founded' the Order. Most of the soldiers who went on the First Crusade went home to Europe after Jerusalem was in the hands of the Christians. The Templars were formed to protect the Holy Sepulchre as well as other Christians etc....and to help protect the newly won city of Jerusalem.

I take it you also know that the Templars bought land around Peyroles in 1127, a charter says so.

Yes, i know that. A very interesting Templar, Hugh Rigaud, was in the Rousillon area recruiting men and donations. He must have been close to Hughes de Payens, and he may have travelled in the company of Robert de Craon, the next Grand Master of the Templars. They (the early Templar order) also had donations around Esperaza and Campagne. Lords at Rennes also were involved with the Templars (somewhat later i believe). I dont know what exactly you want to suggest because the early Templars were in the vicintiy of Peyrolles?

All you've said is that YOU don't have a direct quote from him. I wasn't aware that you were the oracle and knew all there is to know about everything.

Dont you read anything properly Roscoe? Dont you re-read what you write? You said YOU knew where the quote came from. I dont. I thought, if you know, thats great, we can get to the bottom of where the quote is in the primary sources. Because it is a very intruiging quote which requires explanation if its correct. As it turned out, you dont know where the quote is from. And i have no idea why you should then try and turn it around as a fault on my part, that i 'dont know everything'.

Let me tell you something, until about a month ago I didn't know Louis Charpentier had made reference to this. I just threw in his name for Roger actually so I'd get the response "Oh don't believe anything he says".. I placed this very quote in a thread on this forum about a year (eighteen months) ago. This is before I knew that Louis Charpentier had also said it. The thread got ignored of course.

And why do you have to play stupid games about trying to piss Roger off? I mean, how old are you? Cant you be more professional?

You stuck your oar in instead

Well excuse me, if none of us knew you were having a private little spat and game with Roger. Excuse me for interrupting your childish behaviour, and excuse me that you are now having a tantrum because i asked you to provide a primary source for a quote, that now we find out you were just playing about with because you wanted to entice Roger so you could have an argument with him.
And your tone of language ('you stuck your oar in') is aggresive and nasty. And spiteful. I actually think you should be reported to the Moderator.

You ignored them and homed in on this and it was clear to me that you didn't really want to know you just wanted to have a go at me and this is why you are getting nothing from me right now.

Oh i did want to know. And believe me, i dont need anything from you. But even if i did, its clear that you dont know where the primary source is which contains this quote. If you want to believe i just wanted to have a go at you, well thats you being a bit paranoid again.

My so-called agressive stance is to directly attack those who directly attack me (like you did).

I didnt attack you Roscoe. But i got very annoyed when you presumed to know what my motives were in asking for the source. And the fact that you got it all so utterly wrong, i couldnt actually let you carry on thinking you had got it right in your head. You may also care to look at what you wrote, and see that it was you being aggressive to me and that you were coming out with all manner of insults.

Oh by the way - We live close together

I could answer this but i am not going to.

I only ever quote you things that are in the public domain

It doesnt mean that the quotes are correct because they are in the 'public domain'. That is the WHOLE point. You dont just read things on the internet, or in a book .. and believe it. You check facts, check sources, as much as you can do. You look at the archives yourself, or consult those who have seen them as much as you can. With such an important quote by Bernard of Clairvaux, you go to the source, not Lincoln or Charpentier, where you heard or read it. You go and look at the extant Latin rule manuscripts that survive, and check the veracity for yourself. Not only is this more exciting, it is 'proper' research .... not what you are doing.

Anyway, this is my last word on the subject. I do not have anything to say to you anymore Roscoe.

But when i have seen the manuscripts of the Templar Latin Rule, and when i know exactly what is written that Bernard spoke, i will tell you, and then give the source. Once you have that you can post the quote til your hearts content, and your source will no longer be 'I saw Henry Lincoln say it in a film called 'Shadow of the Templars' in 1979', and then i read it in a book by Charpentier a month ago, on page 69'.

You can actually say 'A researcher i know tracked down the quote in one of the four or five remaining medieval manuscripts that contain the early Templar Rule (i will supply you with the exact manuscript title and where it is kept if and when i find it)'. Wont that be much better for you?

<applause>

TCP

Yet again...a great post from Sandy.
C'mon Roscoe...she is stating exactly what needs to be said and being incredibly straight about it.

I am reading 'Freemasonry The Reality' by Tobias Churton. Tobias is himself a Freemason and Honorary Fellow of Exeter University, Lecturer in Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism at the University's Centre for the Study of Western Esotericism.

The book is a well balanced read and attempts to explain the history of Freemasonry through tracing its primary sources where possible. It explains quite well its rituals, meaning and intent today. There is no hype or leaps of faith into crazy speculation.

The book mentions that the first detailed account of the 'Society of Free-masons' in the post-medieval era is to be found in Dr Robert Plot's 'Natural History of Staffordshire' of 1686.

Plot mentions that the society was 'of greater request in the moorlands' of Staffordshire 'than anywhere else'.

Plot is mentioned as giving accounts of the Staffordshire quarries at Cheddleton, Cheadle, Biddulph and Wetley Rocks.

Plot's employer was Elias Ashmole, often stated as being the father of modern Freemasonry.

Three Cistercian monasteries were sponsored in the area. Bernard of Clairvaux was of course the father of the Cistercian brotherhood.

Crossden was founded in 1176 by Bertram de Verdon.

Dieulacres (god's tears? My comment, not Churton's or Plot's) near Leek was founded by Ranulf de Blondeville in 1214.

Henry de Audley founded Abbey Hulton in 1223 near Stoke, close to the Knight's Templar preceptory at Keele.

Clearly there is a connection here with the trade of real stone masonry, the Templars and the later society of speculative masonry. And Bernard of Clairvaux with his Cistercians.

Which is what, precisely?

TCP

There is still a thriving Masonic community in Stoke, never seen any Templar related things though.

The only thing in Abbey Hulton now is a large council estate and a cemetery. At Keele again there are no ruins of such preceptory as far as I'm aware, if anyone has details of such please let me know and I'll pop up and get photos etc ( thats if the Keele students haven't destroyed it )
Regards
Nic

The short answer is that three Templars, whose rule was confirmed by Bernard of Clairvaux at the Council of Troyes, set up Cistercian orders in an area where guild masonry and stone quarries were very active. Some hundreds of years later many of the same families still living in the area provide some of the first real written and physical evidence of speculative freemasonry, although the stipulation was that one working stone mason still be present at a masonic gathering.

I commented on this merely because it is another Bernard of Clairvaux connection.

--snip snippety snip--

The Templar manor of the Preceptory of Keele doesn't exist anymore. It included a barn, a kitchen, a stable, an ox-stall, a dovecote, a sheepfold, a watermill and a windmill. It looked more like a farm than a manor in fact. The buildings were located on the site of the Old Vicarage. The text of a suit brought by the Prior of the Hospitallers against one of the 15th century lessees of the manor mentions that the Templar buildings were already destroyed at that time.

Some of the agricultural lands of the Preceptory were located near the modern Pepper Street and over the land where the present University of Keele is located. The Templars owned around 1100 acres of land there.

--snip snippety snip--

HOUSE OF KNIGHTS TEMPLARS

18. THE PRECEPTORY OF KEELE (fn. 1)

An estate in Keele worth £2 3s. 7d. was given to the Knights Templars by Henry II, probably in 1168-9. By 1185 the Templars were also holding land at Onneley (in Madeley) worth 2s., likewise a gift of Henry II. (fn. 2) Richard I confirmed Henry's gifts in 1189 as the vill of Keele and its appurtenances. (fn. 3) From at least 1206 the Templars were letting the Keele property. (fn. 4)

At some time during the 13th century Keele became a preceptory. By the 1250s the 'Templars of Keele' were holding half a virgate at Stanton upon Hine Heath in Shropshire (probably at Booley) by gift of Richard of Stanton and land at Adeney (in Edgmond, Salop.) by gift of Clement of Adeney, who had become their man. (fn. 5) A Preceptor of Keele occurs in 1271. (fn. 6) At the quo warranto proceedings of 1293 the Master of the Templars upheld his claim to view of frankpledge, assize of bread and ale, and 'theng' in Keele. (fn. 7) By 1308 the Templars held rents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Onneley, Stanton, and Nantwich as part of the manor of Keele. (fn.

In 1308, after the condemnation of the Order, the Crown seized Keele with the rest of the Templars' property, retaining it until 1314. (fn. 9) Although it should have passed to the Knights Hospitallers, Keele was in fact secured by Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, evidently as lord of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and on his execution in 1322 it reverted to the Crown. It was only in 1324 that Keele was granted to the Hospitallers. (fn. 10) Instead of establishing a new preceptory they made the manor part of their Commandery of Halston (Salop.). (fn. 11)

Preceptors

Roger de Boninton, occurs 1271. (fn. 12)

Henry Damary, occurs as commander in 1292 and 1293. (fn. 13)

Ralph de Tanet, occurs 1308. (fn. 14)

No seal is known.

Good. Then answer the other points I raised and include them in context.

We both know by now don't we that Louis Charpentier never said (in so many words) the phrase that I posted. Therefore I got the quote from elsewhere. In effect you fell for the trap I set for Roger.

No she isn't

I originally said this in response to a post from Roger not her.



She stuck her oar in and ignored everything else I said.

Now I responded with a statement supposedly from Bernard of Clairvaux. The fact is Louis Charpentier never said this (in so many words). nobody but nobody including Bergerdearcadie has come up with the correct statement made by Louis Charpentier.

Now if you want to know which is correct then buy the book.

Well, the shorter answer would be that Bertram de Verdon, Randulf de Blondeville, and Henry de Audley were not Templars at all. Crusaders, yes - but as knights in the service of their monarch, not as members of a holy order. Also, according to your source they didn't give these properties to the Templars, but rather to the Cistercians to build monasteries. So this connection would seem to be a bit apophenic - seeing Templars every time Bernard's name is mentioned. One might start to believe that Bernard did nothing else in his career but develop the Order of the Temple, which would not only be apophenic, but myopic.

TCP

Thanks for the info Whoop John, ta also Tim for clearing up the Templar/Crusader bit.
Regards
Nic

Yes the book says Crusaders, not Templars. I'd made the association through the mention of the Keele Preceptory. I don't really care if I see Templars or not and I am sorry if my post was misleading. I have no inherent desire to see Templars everywhere. To what end would this profit me?

Please play nicely Roscoe. We are all little stars and deserve respect.

Well, if you must know, Whoop John, Roscoe has exposed you as a Knight of Malta!!!!

Just kidding.

TCP

Whoops, looks like the Mod-editor-ator has swooped in...

TCP

Yes I mentioned someone we know who is a Knight of Malta.

So

Sir Charles Warren? Royal Engineers Map?
Anyone?



He made a map of what he found UNDERGROUND. Anyone seen it? If not what's the problem?

He was a Quatour Coronati Lodge member as is Michael Baigent. As I said before he was in charge of the hunt for Jack the Ripper, which is why he was never caught (erm! correction) brought to Justice.


Sir Charles Warren - Nice set of medals he's got.

Roscoe great point
some members belong to certain orders and take oaths to defend them

that makes them a bit biased

I do not personally belong to and I am not associated with any secret or secretive brotherhood or sorority. Nor have I ever been so. Just to clear that one up.

In the sense that a Freemason is urged 'To study the seven liberal arts and sciences', to whit:
grammar
rhetoric
logic
arithmetic
geometry
music
astronomy
...then I must confess to being an uninitiated lodge-less secret Freemason and of having been so for at least 35 years. Many - I think most - of the topics on this forum might involve these subjects - so its a bias I share with many other posters, I am sure.

Certain orders demand that their members do not divulge their workings or technical terms, which is in keeping with many other organisations too. I am often asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement by my clients. I also observe my own ethical standards about disclosing the work and workings I do for one client with others.