I do believe that I nobly have corrected myself in regards to this question in my previous post. That the "Owner of the Shroud of Turin" was killed at the Battle of Poitiers" is often mentioned in many texts and web sites. Even on pro-Shroud web sites, i.e.:
"September 19, 1356: Geoffrey de Charny is killed by the English at the Battle of Poitiers, during a last stand in which he valiantly defends his king. Within a month his widow, Jeanne de Vergy, appeals to the Regent of France to pass the financial grants, formerly made to Geoffrey, on to his son, Geoffrey II. This is approved a month later. The Shroud remains in the de Charny family's possession."
excerpt from: www.shroud.com.
If that is not "context" than what is? The point is now moot and only of import to you.
Non Sequitur... de Charny's success in battle...."
I beg your pardon, but if ever there was a non sequitur it's using the name "de Charny and "success in battle" in the same sentence. de Charny was taken prisoner at the the battle of Morlaix in 1342, where his captor was the English Knight, Richard Talbot. de Charny also failed in his attempt to capture Calais and little to nothing is mentioned of de Charny's valor at Crecy`. And of course, your glorious French knight was killed by the Black Prince's Welsh Longbow men at Poitiers. So much for de Cherny's battle success.
The point is that this guy was an upstanding citizen not prone to chicanery.
Do tell. Well according to the British Shroud Society, de Charney: "After returning from serving his second known term of imprisonment, directly thanks to Pavia, Geoffrey conducted a daring night raid on the traitor's castle, reputedly finding him in bed with his English mistress Marguerite. Taking him captive to St.Omer, there he decapitated him, quartered his body, and displayed it on the town gates. As Professor Kaeuper drily adds: 'To show that all this was a private matter and not a part of the business of war prohibited for a time by the current truce, Charny took possession only of Aimery himself, not his castle'. So, de Charny had to sneak up on his enemies, because when he faced them he was either captured, or finally killed. In short, in light of the reputations of such men as Chandos, Holland and de Bohun of the English, Geoffrey de Charny was nothing more than a French punk.
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image,...
The evidence is mounting that it was NOT made by any human agency in which case this does not apply.
I beg to differ. The only acceptable evidence will be the "Second Coming".
You are arrogant... and scary.
I could say the same of you, but I won't. "A 'Gentleman' should never fertilize the seeds of ignorance and superstition into the mind of the innocent with a spade full of manure in the form of harsh criticism". (elbucko)
I beg your pardon, but if ever there was a non sequitur it's using the name "de Charny and "success in battle" in the same sentence. de Charny was taken prisoner at the the battle of Morlaix in 1342, where his captor was the English Knight, Richard Talbot. de Charny also failed in his attempt to capture Calais and little to nothing is mentioned of de Charny's valor at Crecy`. And of course, your glorious French knight was killed by the Black Prince's Welsh Longbow men at Poitiers. So much for de Cherny's battle success.
You are elevating your non-sequitur. The success or lack of success in battle has NOTHING to do with de Charny's honesty. You base your criticism on a few lines in one paragraph in a biographic blurb that is far from complete. You imply that de Charny was incompetent in battle, an opinion that obvious was not shared by his King, who trusted his life to him. The fact that his reputation and actions resulted in his being elevated to a high, trusted office, his authoring of a book used as an exemple of proper and honorable behavior for all of French noblemen, ARE facts which might be probative, NOT how he died... along with thousands of others... in a battle that resulted in his King being captured.
Your next reference cut-and-pasted from Barrie Schworz's web site, you add stresses to the quotation to imply that de Charny was "imprisoned" for some nefarious deeds. He was not. He was imprisoned as a prisoner of war due to the actions of a traitor, Pavia. You then imply that his act of justifiable retribution against Pavia was a cowardly, dishonorable act. You then refer to de Charny as a "French punk" because of this act of retribution. De Charny was a product of his times and in accord wthe mores of his culture, acted honorably in the matter. In fact, it is pointed out that de Charny captured ONLY his traitorous enemy; it was considered remarkable that de Charny DID NOT SIEZE Pavia's castle and lands (which he would have been entitled to do but did not because he considered dishonorable to do so), but merely exacted a justifiable beheading and quartering on a traitor to the state. Yes, his retribution was brutal, but it was done legally and according to law. That does not make him a "punk."
Contining commentary from last post...
My point has been that contrary to the shroud debunkers' contention that the Shroud was created to extract money dishonorably from poor (or not so poor) pilgrims, the man in whose possession the Shroud first enters modern history DID NOT DO SO! Instead he funded the church where he stored his possession from his family coffers and from all records did NOT allow donations for that purpose. Furthermore his record does not support the idea of his being a con-man.