Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: BlackElk

Accoding to the movie Brave Heart, it was William Wallace who sired Edwaqrd III...

and Edward Wallace who was dismembered...

But I know a little of the Knights Templar...

From what I’ve read they were the good guys...

I doubt if Ed III would have known it was his father...

Isabella would never have told...


99 posted on 06/20/2009 4:06:57 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]


To: Tennessee Nana
Acquire a copy of the BOOK Braveheart by Neil Wallace. He is/was a Protestant youth minister in Tennessee. In the introduction, he describes how the book came to be. He saw William Wallace's name on a plaque on the wall of the Tower of London with details of his execution. He wondered if he were somehow descended from William Wallace (no, because Wallace left no children). He admitted jazzing up the story in various ways not justified by history to write a novel of history modified to what it could have been and not what had been. Wallace is real, the Bruces are real, Longshanks and Edward II and III are real. Isabella of France is real but only a child at Wallace's death and certainly not his lover.

Indeed, Isabella would not have disclosed the French knight as Edward III's father. Her adultery would have amounted to treason punishable by death (although one can well sympathize with her undoubted rage against the fraudulent faggot to whom she had been married off. There was no Edward Wallace but William Wallace was hanged, drawn, quartered and dismembered at the Tower of London for his virtues.

Finally, you can bet that Edward III well knew what his "father" (Edward II) was sexually by at least reputation. He probably also knew that the knight was his father but admitting it would have cost him his crown since he was therefore NOT a Plantagenet. It is good to be king and Edward II's perversions coupled with Isabella's normality and the knight's willingness should not deprive Edward III of a god thing like being king (at least in Edward III's judgment).

As to the Knights Templar, there is plenty of evidence that they were not good guys. In those days, the RCC played some of the more benign roles of international organizations today. I would rather have the papacy as an international moral force without an army of its own than submit to the tyranny of the UN, Tri-Laterals, Bilderbergers and their ilk. I would rather the US be a separate and quite sovereign nation with no formal control over it and as few treaty obligations as possible. I would rather that the US be a separate and sovereign nation and not a Catholic nation as such because those not Catholic have so welcomed us here and have demonstrated the wisdom of their vision of religious freedom that we Catholics should honor them by cherishing and protecting the religious freedom they created here with no demands other than our share of that freedom.

I believe that the Templars were trying to become an international financial and political and MILITARY power to rival or surpass the Vatican in those respects. The Vatican responded by demanding of Philip the Fair the execution of the Templar leaders to nip their threat to the existing order in the bud. Most opposing groups in that age executed their enemies freely when they had the chance. We can study history and understand history and make our own history. We cannot revise history.

133 posted on 06/20/2009 11:38:05 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson