Indeed no, johnb one knew all that -any schoolboy does.
Rather, anything that might shed light on the possible truth of F-M's assertion:-

"Most of what the Hospitallers did take, was later destroyed in the Peasant rebellions in the late 1300s, and or returned to property owners who then cared for the property.

More or less it's a myth of people who don't follow the paper trail, that the Hospitallers aquired any Templar holdings in any real way. "

One of the indirect sources is "Born in Blood" by John Robinson.

The direct source is from doccuments and correspondance between the different Preceptories of the Knights Hospitaller.

Constructing basically an entire seperate organization within the hospitallers to run and opperate the former Templar facilities.

Ugh I can't remember the name of the specific Preceptory, it started with an A I believe (I'll have to go find the book), but I know the book interested me so I searched information on the preceptory itself, and found that the doccumentations were indeed real, and that the Hospitallers indeed recieved very little of what they were granted.

Note to you, John Robinson is a medieval scholar, well knowledgable in such events and how they fully happend.

So it's pretty foolish to just disagree with me because you always heard...everyone hears...indeed sir follow the paper trail

I'll find that damn preceptory.

Ahh that's why I couldn't find it!

1) Wrong book, best source is Temple and the Lodge by Michael Beigent, John Robinson discusses the losses of Templar lands, and how much didn't get recieved, and were spared by the Peasants in the Great Peasant revolt of 1380s, while the Hospitaller lands, and Templar sites they aquired in full, while other Templar sites aquired but only maintained, were spared.

In the Temple and the lodge, its' the "Priors" not Preceptories, I got the word wrong.

I'll agree we were both right on this...

Sources:

1) Addison, The history of the Knights Templars, pp. 285-6

2) Cowan, Mackay and Macquarrie, The Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in Scotland, pp. 47-48.

3) Larking, The Knights Hospitaller in England, p. 201.

The reason we're both right is I probably over stated (but haven't affirmed that I have), where the Templar lands remained secure.

In England and Scotland and Wales, this is affirmed, that the Hospitallers aquired almost no lands.

The Great Peasnt Revolt of 1380s (there were two) but the one in question was in Great Brittain.

So therefore, my point SHOULD be just that the Hospitallers did not aquire all Templar lands, primarily the lands in the land where the Templars were strongest...and survived (hence into masonry).

Oh another good source about the troubles Hospitallers had aquiring what was supposedly "theirs" is Scottish Record Office, RH6/114 and 115.

It discusses how the Templar lands were administered seperately as such, by the Hospitallers, when they finally aquired what land they could.

Excellnt links, F-M, and let Estragon be the first to admit his ignorance of such action during the Peasants' revolt: I was unaware of any major movement in England prior to the Dissolution of the Monasteries c1540 (when Henry VIII grabbed everything -of course).

Worshipping Baphomet was the best thing the knights templar could've done. They were the forgotten soldiers of the crusades. Their spoils of war were reaped by kings and noblemen, and their importance was under appreciated.

Didn't the Knight Templars become the Free Masons, after nearly all the Knight Templars were killed? I wonder if the freemasons or sworn to poverty? Or, if they just sign away thier property in a will to the Free Masons?

Templars became masons, and probably influenced Masonry greatly from being opperative into becomming speculative. But to what extent as I always say, is debatable.

As for Templars...they were very powerful even up until 1307 and outside of France still powerful.

In Germany, Templars on trial went to the trial in full battle dress, and basically told the judge to "Shut up I'm innocent".

In England, King Edward was VERY reluctant to turn on the Templars, and when he was finally forced to by the Church, he barely did little more than imprison and then release shortly after..which was still a big mistake because the Templars helped Robert the Bruce (excommunicated for being a Celt and "necromancer"), in freeing himself from Edward's rule.

In Ireland little happend against the Templars.

In spain the every so good inquisition laid it's seige!

And in Portugal little happend.

Mainly about 15,000 Templars (hardly a majority of templars) were caught in France and Spain, and then most all of them were caught on the surprise attack on 13th October, 1307 (Friday none the less).

As for the Peasant Revolt, especially the "Great Peasant Revolt" in Brittain.

John Robinson makes a convincing argument that this was orchestrated by the Templar//Freemasons for following reasons.

1) The only people who could communicate between villages at that time, were nobles, clergy, and Masons. Not peasants.

2) On the same day, peasants all across England rose up against the King.

3) The leader of the rebellion was a man conveniently called "William Tyler".

And so on...it's really good.

Can blacks be Masons? I have a black friend that is wanting to join the Masons. I can't recall ever having met a black Mason.

Actually, I'm not going to go into all the stuff going on.

If your friend wants to petition to become a Mason, don't try and stop him

I've never heard of a case of a Black not being allowed to become a Mason because of his color, most simply never apply and just join Princehall.

If he has a problem I'd be interested in hearing about it, since it'd be the first case I've ever heard of.

I know there are plenty of Blacks in Freemasonry in California, a few around here, I don't know about the South, but the northern states especially there are some.

The South might sadly be reluctant to allow blacks in, but that would be the racism of the individual not Masonry, and I do know that many southern Lodges would have Blacks if a black petitioned and some do, the South though is stalwartly against recognition of Princehall.

So that's the basics.

It'd be nice if your friend petitioned, I feel he'd be a great example that the supposed Racism of Freemasonry has long been over, because I doubt he'd be blackballed.

Both the KT and Masons share the common thread that they both have involvemt with the Temple of Solomen. Something found in that temple a thousand years ago either by Templars, Masons, Jews, or Arabs must be important for we still talk about it. Did they find a scripture, the holy grail, the ark, or some sinister seceret no one realy knows but it is intriguing none the less

They were somtimes called the White Eagles within their group.

The hugenots gathering on Ireland built and bought ships to a fleet. The main ship was "The Black Eagle" and on this ship the Order Order of the Black Eagle was founded as a counterpart to the catholic order..

The hugenots went out in war against them. In 1653 a great sea battle occured and only 4 ships of the Order of the Black Eagle arrived at the new land. In Boston.

[Edited on 2003-9-5 by Magnus]

I remember watching on the history channel, about the holy grail, it was said that it was in one of the pillars of the church of templar. Some archaelogists wanted to do a x-ray scan on the pillars, but where denied. Not really sure if anyone else saw it but, but if so, would they care elaborate on it.

I have this theory that the KT's found something in the ruins of the Temple mount that would destroy the foundations of Christianity and the power of the Church They could not reveal this secret because they were not powerful enough to survive the fury of the Holy see So they waited and built there order under the guise of a devot Christian brotherhood when they had reached a point when they could control all of Europe they would announce the secret and bring down the Church.
This plan ran afoul of the other secret group in Europe the Kings themselves who believed in there divine right of rule because of there decent from the Bloodline of Christ. These 3 groups began a power struggle that declined when the Templars were raided and sent underground They later formed the Freemasons As a way to continue there struggle with the Church and the divine Bloodline this struggle resulted in the foundation in the new world of the United States a country free of relegious domination and the Bloodline. It also resulted in breaking the power of the Church and forcing the Bloodline to re-mold itself into the powerful industrial and banking families of the US and Europe. We are all caught up in this power struggle which is largely between the Bloodline families and their associates and the secret societies.
I do not think that the Families or societies are by any means united and in some cases are one and the same I think we are seeing these factions play out their old grudges on the world stage. This is why no one can pin down just who is behind all of the things we call "the conspiracy" because it is not just one group or cabal it is many and it exist because the struggle between them is what drives the world to progress. ORDO AB CHAO Order out of Chaos. I think the KTs lost out in the end because I believe they wanted to free humanity from the tyranny of relgion and Divine right of kings I think when they formed the US they basically said "OK we did it" This is why most Masons today are just good citizens and know nothing of the "struggle" I think the families and secret societies all became inter-twinned and now they seek seperate but equally tyranical goals.
There is no One true great conspiracy there is just different groups of people trying to control everything!

Great theory,
A large sum of it matches my own personal ideals from the past few months of looking into the Knights Templar...

I like your last line "no one great conspiracy, just..."
Good line

I personally lean more towards the Vatican/hristian/Religous side of conspircies then I do aliens.
- Tassadar

This is something I have put together from reading a large number of books on the KTs and the Bloodline of Christ. You just seem to come across the same people and the same type of people and the same ideas in these books It seems to me that all of this stuff just fits together. I know there has been some debunking of the "priory of zion" and the "rennes le chateau" stories but I have not read anything more than alternate theorys from the debunkers. I cant help but believe that even if these stories are false that they are rooted in truth and that there did exist a "cult of the black madonna" and that even if it was untrue it was believed to be true by the kings of Europe. That alone makes it real that they themselves believed it and it motivated them to go to war and shape the map of Europe and this was at odds with the goals of the Catholic Church and the Knights/Masons sets the stage for my theory.

That is something that the Debunkers seem to miss. That even if a story is untrue if the people in the timeframe of the story believed it to be true that was enough!
It like those who believe the various stories surrounding 9-11 even if there is no evidence to support the story the fact that people believe in a story gives it life and impact!