Knights Templar

PatrickWilliams

I could tell you ...
The specific military sense of a knight being a mounted warrior in the heavy cavalry emerges only in the Hundred Years' War. The verb "to knight", i.e. to make someone a knight appears around 1300, and from the same time, the word "knighthood" shifted from "adolescence" to "rank or dignity of a knight".
Knight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So this, then, would indicate that the 'knights' mentioned in the Halliwell MS are not necessarily horsemen or warriors or nobles, inasmuch as Athelstan reigned from 924 to 940, yes???
 

KSigMason

Traveling Templar
Could you give us a citation on that one, KSig? I own a facsimile copy of the Regius and would like to read that section, but would rather not re-read the whole thing to find that segment. I've searched the online version (more than once) and can find no reference to the word "knight".
Here is the excerpt:

After all the masons of the craft,
To come to him full even straight,
For to amend these defaults all
By good counsel, if it might fall.
An assembly then could let make
Of divers lords in their state,
Dukes, earls, and barons also,
Knights, squires and many more,
And the great burgesses of that city,
They were there all in their degree;
There were there each one always,
To ordain for these masons' estate,
There they sought by their wit,
How they might govern it;
Also look at the York Rite College Description & Purpose

Also check out King Athelstan and Freemasonry
 

PatrickWilliams

I could tell you ...
Ksig:

Thanks for the citation! It is interesting reading, but (to my mind, anyway) does not necessarily indicate the establishment of 'an order' combining masons and nobility. It just says that the nobility were there to 'govern' (which makes sense, as the 'lower classes' in those days were the 'property' of the higher classes (feudalism was such a fun thing!).

The Halliwell MS (or Regius Poem, whichever you prefer) has too many 'problems' to be taken as historically accurate, however. Who actually wrote it and why? We can tell by the language, the paper used, etc. that it was most likely penned in around 1390, but was it an original poem or a transcription of a much earlier work, translated into the language of the time? Are the descriptions of Athelstan, the Grand Lodge, etc. as legendary as as the story of Pythagoras that was also included? Too many questions and no answers!
 

Duncan1574

Lodge Chaplain & arms dealer
Freemasonry at its best, Brothers debating, sharing light with us side liners.

I have learned some things.
 

KSigMason

Traveling Templar
Ksig:

Thanks for the citation! It is interesting reading, but (to my mind, anyway) does not necessarily indicate the establishment of 'an order' combining masons and nobility. It just says that the nobility were there to 'govern' (which makes sense, as the 'lower classes' in those days were the 'property' of the higher classes (feudalism was such a fun thing!).

The Halliwell MS (or Regius Poem, whichever you prefer) has too many 'problems' to be taken as historically accurate, however. Who actually wrote it and why? We can tell by the language, the paper used, etc. that it was most likely penned in around 1390, but was it an original poem or a transcription of a much earlier work, translated into the language of the time? Are the descriptions of Athelstan, the Grand Lodge, etc. as legendary as as the story of Pythagoras that was also included? Too many questions and no answers!
Too true. Far too many holes to ever say it actually happened.
 

Rough Ashlar

New Member
So much conjecture is out there about a possible relationship with the Templars. for knights to have been made, or to have a legitimate order of chivalry there must be what is a pedigree or a "font' d'honnour" usually the head of state or a sovergien (ie the papacy in cases of the Order of the Holy Sepulchure, or Elizabeth II for Knights of the Garter or the "Venerable Order of St John").

Masonry has neither, except where Freemasonry enjoys recognition in certain parts of the world where its male nobility or royalty have been its patron or grand master like in the UK.

Which brings us to Chevalier Ramsey, a Freemason Scottish tudor to the Scottish/Polish Young Pretender in exile, in what was at the time an allied country to the kingdom of Scotland under the provisions of the Auld Alliance, France. An Alliance by the way which granted citizenship to both the French and the Scots as subjects of thier respective nations, and render aid in times of war. ie England. As such many Clan Families in Scotland and in turn even in France have strong family ties to the other country.

So thus by establishing such a foundation and a reason for Chevalier/Sir Andrews situation in France we can make a better determination about possible chivalric origins in the first APPENDANT orders of Freemasonry. I would not be dismissive in Ramsey's influence on the chivalric orders, and it seems the French venerated him enough to have titled him "Chevalier" a term like that of "Sir" in English. A title which if used falsely by the wrong person would have ment considerable time in the jails of the Bastile or even death.

What body is Sir Andrew responsible for? York Rite or the Ancient and Accepted Rite (Scottish Rite)?. How do we draw parallels to both or one or the other. I can say without going into any ritualistic work that the two are not dissimilar. The messages conveyed in the York Rite System are similar in phiosophy and even in biblical story to some of the obigatory degress of the Scottish Rite with differences only being in presentation. Is Ramsey responsible for both? Well see.

These are several questions I am putting forth in a work I am publishing on the early Colonial History of Europe, Elizabeth I to The Treaty of Paris, the 100 yrs war, the American and French Revolutions, and the Scottish Wars for Independance the last battle of which took place only thirty years before the US Revolution.

While such a work is not specifically "Templar" in origin it would make the case for alot of political explanations for the "higher" degrees. Which would shed some light on why even in europe (which unlike the US accepts only legitimate orders of chivalry) we as modern Templars can call ourselves "knights".


Can you expound on this, please??
 

jawhary

New Member
In my opinion the Knights were guilty of being too good with money. They were the royal treasurers (lack of a better word) to many countries including France. Therefore, people were afraid of their power.
 
Top