There is a clear documentary record of the permissions vis-a-vis the Shroud granted to de Charny and to his wife extant in the Papal records. De Charny requested permission of the Pope to build his chapel to house and display the Shroud. It is HE who suggested restrictions on its display and assured the Pope that he would not accept donations or charge admission. This is a very rare request... most people who possessed a "relic" merely opened up shop and started accepting donations from the public.
There are also records in the Regency files about the rente. There are also the records of the Bishop of Troyes. They are in agreement about the nature of the exhibitions of the Shroud before de Charny's death. It is only after his death and his wife and daughters determination to display the shroud as an object of veneration did controversy arise. The one letter which raises the question of "the painter who painted it" is merely a draft indicating it is a letter the Bishop intends to send with marginalia indicating changes and deletions. This draft copy exists only in the Bishop's files and there is no original "trasmitted" letter or copy in either Avignon or in Rome, which, given the completeness of the files in both locations, would tend to indicate it was never sent. There is indication that the Pope was appraised of the situation because he issued a permission to de Charny's family to display the Shroud AND ordered the Bishop to perpetual silence on the matter. The Pope, although never having seen the shroud, ordered that it be displayed only as a "representation of the Shroud of Our Lord."
I would suggest that the ENGLISH Chronicler of the Hundred Years War might have had other motives for disparaging one of the chief advisors to the King of France. Your assumption that de Charny is a "moron and/or an arrogant fool. A charlatan or a chump. Probably all." does not follow from the evidence. IF it is a "fable" then it certainly doesn't.
We have our own modern form of the Code of Chivalry for modern battle. It is called the Geneva Convention. It sets down certain battle practices that certainly would give an advantage to the side using them that are not permitted. If you were to act contrary to the Geneva Convention against an opponent also signatory to the Convention, the rest of the world would be aghast. We are currently in discussions over whether non-signatory terrorists should also be covered in the Geneva Conventions.
AS to the survivability of the Shroud for 1300 years. That is one of the real reasons for doubting the authenticity of the Shroud. However, studies of the image on the shroud have revealed information UNKNOWN about Jewish burial customs that were confirmed after the fact of the Shroud research and tend to argue in favor of a First Century provenance. It is MUCH more likely that a Shroud of the founder of a major religion would be revered and saved than the gory shroud of Joe Schmoe.
Further, we have the example of the Sudarium of Oviedo which has a KNOWN provenance of early 6th Century (and a supected provenance of 1st Century). However, it is the fact that this PARTICULAR piece of linen HAS INDEED been preserved for 1400 years without further damage. It is important to note that the custodians of this cloth would have the same motives as any custodian of the Shroud cloth.
With the latest discoveries proving the 1988 C-14 sample are completely compromised by intermixture of mid-16th Century linen with original shroud material, the C14 dates are now considered invalid. Dr. Harry Gove, the inventor of the C14 technique used on the Shroud samples agreed givien the latest findings that the sample was no good. When he was asked what date the ORIGINAL material would have to be to give the 1260 - 1390 with the observed percentages of "new" linen. Gove did some calculations and said original material would have to be First Century, plus or minus 100 years. Gove is not a "shroud fanatic".
In addition, there are extant 10th Century Icons with KNOWN and certain provenances that show representations of the Shroud... indicating its existance FAR OUTSIDE the plus or minus 25 years degrees of confidence of the C14 test. This proves the shroud was copied at least 100 years before the earliest date of the C14 test reports.
Finally we have the results of the Vanillin tests which show the ratio of Lignin to Vanillin in the threads of the original shroud to be less than than detectible. Comparisons with other linen cloths show that this level of detectibility is found on cloths only older than 1300 years. Whether the Shroud had an image on it or not, it seems the cloth is at least 1300 years old. Interestingly, the threads from the patch show a ratio that gives it a Vanillin content equivalent to 500 years or so.
As I said, I am following the science and the scholarship as presented in peer-reviewed journals... you are following your predetermined opinions and cherry picking negative information from doubtful sources.
I will bid on your auction on e-Bay... Thanks for dropping your iconoclastic determination.
This is true. At this time my opinions are predetermined. The evidence, including your apologies for de Charny, is just not enough to cause me to change my mind regarding the origins, provenance and substance of the shroud. What is interesting is to watch the argument, back and forth. One side uses one source that it will repudiate later because the other side can site inconsistencies in the source. It's a dog chasing its tail and is just about as important.
As for the Geneva Convention, I have other opinions than yours about it being the modern day equivalent of "chivalry". It's not. Just as in the Hundred Years War, the "Noble Deed" does not a victory make in the 21st. Century.