Re: Knights Templar (KT) reference in Kate Bush FAQ

[pwh@elmegil.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)]

ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei) writes:
>Lets see, what's being reccomended for references to the Knights Templar?
>Holy Blood, Holy Grail
>	This is the sort of book which make serious historians puke. Again and
>	again, they speculate on something in one chapter, and in the next say
>	'as we have previously proved', and go on the the next level of castles
>	in the air. They quote "sources" which, days after they see them, are
>	'stolen' or 'lost'. Do you take their central thesis seriously, which
>	proposes that Christ survived crucifixion, and shacked up with Mary
>	Magdalen in the south of France, with His bloodline surviving to this
>	day? Get real.

Why don't YOU get real.

I said it was an interesting book, I didn't say it was a definitive
reference.  I fact, I can't recall saying it was a reference at all.
Nor did I say I believed the premise.


>Foucault's Pendulum.
>	This is a really neat book, but it was written as fiction, and never
>	intended to be anything else. Ecco has no problem in inventing history
>	when it suits his purpose, and there's no shame in that, so long as
>	it's clearly labeled.

yeah, so?  Didn't the posted comments SAY it was fiction?


>     If you want a good ,academically sound history of the KT, try
>Peter Partner's "The murdered Magicians: the Knights Templar and their
>myth".


Yeah, if you can wade through the dryness of an academic account, it's
good to know the facts.  Personally I was fascinated, but I can't think of
anyone else I've known who was intrigued by the Templars that could be
persuaded to read it.



We could do with a lot less of your attitude problem.