Talk:Jacques de Molay

message: Surprisingly I found no references that the use of torture was widely used to force many templars, like Jacques de Molay himself to confess. User:Mistico
You've got to be kidding! Almost every historical book on the subject gives evidence of torture! ThePeg 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torture 

message: :de Molay failed to successfully lead the Templars through the inquisitions made against them and was burnt at the stake on an island in the river Seine in Paris, Ile de la Cité, on 18 March 1314.
How .. does one 'successfully' let alone 'lead' a group of people through 'the inquisitions', given that every inquisition had already, per history, made it's mind up before commencement of torture and eventual execution?  Kind of oxymoronical to say he 'failed' at it.  Did anyone succeed?  :) 211.30.71.59 12:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Drivel

message: I changed the heading Myths to Legends. Also, there is one very notable ommission from this section: after the execution of Louis XVI during the french revolution, somebody in the crowd is said to have yelled "Jacques de Molay, thou art avenged!" this is a great legend, would tie up the "curse" subsection nicely, and would offer an opportunity to link to french revolution, freemasonry, and illuminati. unfortunately, i cant find any reputable place online to source it as a legend. --popefauvexxiii 04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jacques de Molay, thou art avenged!" 

message: The "thou art avenged" is in the Illuminatus Trilogy, first published 7 years before Holy Blood, Holy Grail  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.70.229 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: According to Holy Blood, Holy Grail:

message: The Grand Master section of the article has been tagged as unreliable. Which statements are unreliable? In time, I might add footnotes and citations from the book which I used as a source, The Last Templar by Alain Demurger. Some paragraphs may have been added by others in later times, but I don't have the overview of just that.
sincerely, cun 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly this is related to recent additions from Franco-Mongol alliance.  Such as the claim that De Molay was directly involved in combat operations, participated in a successful attack on Jerusalem in 1299, and briefly held the city.  To my knowledge none of that happened.  But if you have access to additional sources for this article or the alliance one, they would be much appreciated.  :) --Elonka 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grand Master section unreliable?

message: We all agree the event described in the painting probably did not happen. This painting was nevertheless made in the 19th century (), and very nicely documents how the story of the conquest of the Holy Land by the Mongols and their Templars allies was inflated at that time. It is nice illustration of the retelling and deformation of old history. User:Elonka reverted a Npov editing I did, and my relocation of it to the Crusades (where it belongs): there is currently absolutely no text that relates to this illustration in the Legend section. Overall, not such a big deal, but I think this kind of low-level reverting is quite cavallier and unjustified. Regards PHG 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and reworked the "Legends" section of the article, so the location of the image should no longer be an issue. --Elonka 10:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. This is starting to make more sense at last... PHG 11:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of "Jacques de Molay in Jerusalem" painting

message: A very large amount of information was deleted from this article on November 17th . In particular, referenced information pertaining to de Molay's relations with the Mongols disapeared. Could someone consider reinstating the information? Cheers PHG (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The information was removed because it was giving undue weight to De Molay's relatively minor involvement with the Mongols. The Frankish-Mongol communications, along with their failed attempts at forming an alliance, are better covered in the article Franco-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 22:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight? This is a very important part of de Molay's life. For a period of about 3 years he made a final attempt to reconquer the Holy Land by estalishing contacts with the Mongols and attempting to coordinate military activity with them. For example, in Alain Demurger's biography "Jacques de Molay" this is covered by a whole 20 pages. Isn't it legitimate to properly document these important 3 years of his life? Cheers PHG (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We already have four paragraphs about this in the "Grand Master" section of the article.  In my opinion, that's already too much and should be condensed down even further.  We don't need to add even more information to it. --Elonka 19:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: The image :File:Crown.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Crown.gif

message: Ordination of Jacques de Molay in 1265 as a Knight Templar, at the Beaune commandery, painted by Marius Granet (1777-1849). Feel free to insert the image into the article. Phg (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordination of Jacques de Molay in 1265

message: The account of de Molay's death and curse provided in this article is inconsistent with the version provided in the Wikipedia article on Phillip IV of France. ≈≈≈≈ Daniel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.60.87 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Death of de Molay

message: I would advise all interested in the concept of "modern interpretation of old history" to read "Inventing the Middle Ages" by Historian Norman F. Cantor.   Mugginsx (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommended reading

message: This can be a great article if we leave our egos at the door and pull together.  I am willing to help if it does not lead to confrontation.  That does not mean we cannot disagree, but that we are honest in our differences of opinion.  I have seen some really great articles on Wiki and it was, without exception, when many people came to the article with whatever they could find, sourced it properly, and debated with respect on agreement or disagreement. Great minds work together, small minds work alone.  They are some very good editors on this page and I would be priviledged to work with any and I hope you feel the same way.  I am presently working with a post surgical rotator cuff impairment, so I am at somewhat of a loss as, after a short time, I am in pain just typing, but I promise I will help with humility and sincerely as best I can.  I have a research background and if I can find something someone is looking for, I will do so and the credit will be yours.  Mugginsx (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear about your injury! But yes, any and all help is appreciated. If you have a research background, you may wish to join one of WikiProjects around, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages.  the Military History WikiProject is usually a buzzing hive of activity and I'm sure they would appreciate any assistance. Also, there is help needed in article reviewing, for example at Good article nominations, Featured article nominations, and Peer reviews, if something like that might be of interest?  We always have extensive backlogs, and more reviewers are always needed! --Elonka 22:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your kind words.  You did great work improving the article.  I think we have a difficult subject in de Molay, but not impossible.  I would compare him to Alexander the Great in that we will probably have to be content with his deeds, rather than his words and personal life. If we do that well, however, we will come out with a fair presumption as to what kind of man he really was.  That is an exciting thought, is it not?  As to the Projects you mentioned, I am flattered that you think me capable, however I am not qualified at this time because I am only a bearly passable programmer.  For now, I am happy to contribute at my own pace and ease, while gradually learning the programming aspect.  I love history and enjoy reading as well as making contributions from time to time.  Had physical therapy today and really cannot do anymore tonight. Thank you again for your kind words and best wishes. Mugginsx (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This can be a great article

message: Scholars will debate from now to infinitum about the exact day of de Molay's death, as well as many other exact dates.  That is the kind of thing they dedicate their life doing. They carry with them the tools of years of learning several languages, including; but not limited to: Middle English, English, Middle French, French, and Old and Modern Latin.  The honest ones will admit that many such "exact" dates, especially in medieval articles, are just not knowable.  "Florence" is somewhat more reliable only because the dates are sometimes connected with astrological observations.  Considering the venue we are presenting working in, I hope you will agree with me that it is best to leave out the day, keep the year and go on to researching more important things about this subject, thus accomplishing an article no one can contest.  Can we have a consenses on this? Mugginsx (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to handle this is to just neutrally present the differing views, in proper proportion to what the sources are saying. The general rule on Wikipedia, is that we're not here to "decide" the dispute, we're here to describe the dispute.  So let's just lay out the differing opinions, and then the reader will know that there is disagreement.  For example, we might say, "The day of Molay's death is reported differently in various sources.  Most, such as (name) say "x", but some, such as (names) say "y"".  For more info on how to handle these situations of "the sources disagree", see WP:ASF and WP:NPOV. --Elonka 18:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Death

message: The images are just beautiful in this article.  My congratulations to the editor or editors who inserted them Mugginsx (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I added a paragraph which I think is vital to the interpretation of the Chinon document, in that many people who are not Catholic might understandably confuse the words used "absolution" with "innocence".  The document, if misread could be interpreted much differently if it is believed that the Pope (Clement V) or the Cardinals involved were trying to exonerate the Templars.  I believe the truth was quite the contrary.  It was all part of a most devious game to make the Templars "look guilty, but forgiven" which is quite a different matter, as when the Church "absolves" it actually acknowledges the sin as true and declares punishment.  It was also quite clever and devious as Clement makes himself look innocent, when in fact it was an act of duplicity with the King of France. Mugginsx (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Extract: Papal Bull, Vox in excelso (28 March 1312). "We wished to know the truth of the whole matter and whether their confessions and depositions, which were said to have been made in the presence of the inquisitor of heresy in the kingdom of France and witnessed by certain public notaries and many other good men, and which were produced in public and shown to us and our brothers by the inquisitor, were true. We empowered and commanded our beloved sons Berengar, Cardinal, then with the title of Nereo and Achilleo, now Bishop of Frascati, and Stephen, Cardinal-priest with the title of Saint Cyriac in Thermis, and Landulf, Cardinal-deacon with the title of Saint Angelo, in whose prudence, experience and loyalty we have the fullest confidence, to make a careful investigation with the grand master, visitor and preceptors, concerning the truth of the accusations against them and individual persons of the Order and against the Order itself. If there was evidence, it was to be brought to us; the confessions and depositions were to be taken down in writing by a public notary and presented to us. The cardinals were to grant absolution from the sentence of excommunication, according to the form of the Church, to the master, visitor and preceptors - a sentence incurred if the accusations were true - provided the accused humbly and devoutly requested absolution, as they ought to." Malcolm Barber, Keith Bate, The Templars: selected sources translated and annotated, page 313 (Manchester University Press, 2002).  Lung salad (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinon document interpretation

message: Marked this as neutrality disputed for the following reasons:</br>
♦ The statement "...claiming with little or no proof that Molay was a key figure connected to other stories of mystery" seems to be a blanket statement and has no supporting citation.</br>
♦ The statement "There is no reliable basis for saying that the Shroud depicts Molay..." ignores some evidence already included and cited on the Turin Shroud page, including radiocarbon dating consistent with with the death of JDM, and the position that AB type blood did not come into existence until after 700AD.</br>
--Deeptime (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in Shroud of Turin section 

message: In the section Legends/Curse, the article states "Clement was described as shedding tears of remorse on his death-bed for three great crimes, the poisoning of Henry VI, and the ruin of the Templars and Beguines."
The Henry VI link goes to a disambig page; none of the persons listed there are described as being poisoned in their respective articles, and three of them don't come from Clement's time period in any event. So who, precisely, is the poisoned man whom Clement is said to have lamented on his deathbed? SS451 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked that up myself, the reference comes from American historian Henry Charles Lea. Lung salad (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It refers to Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor where rumours existed that he was poisoned, see the French Wikipedia article:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_VI_du_Saint-Empire
Lung salad (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clement V regretted the poisoning of who? 

message: I'm going to go out on a slight limb and remove the "James of Molay", only because I have never seen him referred to as anything but Jacques de Molay (with the usual messing about of caps on the "surname") in English. If someone feels compelled to put it back, please cite somewhere it appears. MSJapan (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears in Michael Haag, The Templars: History and Myth – From Solomon’s Temple to the Freemasons (2008), and also in Barber, Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources (2002).
Here's a reference for all the other books  Lung salad (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name... 

message: http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofinquis03leah/historyofinquis03leah_djvu.txt  - Chapter 5 The Templars pg 263 paragraph 2 - 
cites the five original charges against the Templars.  One mentions the worshipping of an idol bearing the image of a "man with a long beard" the description is of a rounded idol.  It was never found and de Moley was never identified as being the image.   New book cited sounds like some sensationized version.  Appearing here seems more like Wiki/Fringe.  I would ask the editor who put the information contained in the Amazon described pseudohistorical book, at what reference point does this information exist and the reference given for the author's statement that the image was ever thought to be that of Jacques de Molay?
Took it out WP:BOLD.  Mugginsx (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacques de Molay the image they worshipped?   

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jacques de Molay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225080054/http://www.demolay.org/aboutdemolay/firstdemolay.php to http://www.demolay.org/aboutdemolay/firstdemolay.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111227215047/http://www.demolay.org/aboutdemolay/history.php to http://www.demolay.org/aboutdemolay/history.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jacques de Molay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225073519/http://www.demolay.org/aboutdemolay/author.php to http://www.demolay.org/aboutdemolay/author.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the start of the article it states that the Templars were dissolved in 1307. The correct year is 1312. 1307 is the year that the pope ordered that the Templars be arrested. The date should be corrected or clarification provided.  Jaccmatt (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissolution of Templars.  

message: Having read through some of the conversations above, I do not wish to ignite any emotions or stir up any fever, but...
That being said, I wonder about the inclusion of the 'Shroud of Turin' text in the 'Legends' section. I'm not debating the validity of this text, merely the inclusion in this section of de Molay's entry. It seemingly does not have any relevance to de Molay or his subsequent legend.
Geoffroi de Charny (the French Knight who died at the 1356 battle of Poitiers) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy are the first reliably recorded owners of the Shroud of Turin. This Geoffroi participated in a failed crusade under Humbert II of Viennois in the late 1340s. He is sometimes confused with Templar Geoffroi de Charney.
If there is pertinent data missing, then I would invite one more learned than me in such matters to flesh out the piece.  If de Molay has some involvement in this artifact, then it should be stated here.  Again, not questioning the verity of this text, just its location here in this article.  I'm open to discussion on it.  I will refrain from any edits to this content for the time being.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasFoo99 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the Shroud Piece from the 'Legends' Section? 

message: This page states that "There de Molay, de Charney, de Gonneville, and de Peraud were slowly burned to death."
On the page for Hugues de Pairaud, it states "Hugues de Pairaud (Visitor of the Temple) was one of the leaders of the Knights Templar. He and Geoffroi de Gonneville (the Preceptor of Aquitaine) were sentenced to life imprisonment on March 18, 1314. They were spared the fate of Jacques de Molay (Grand Master) and Geoffroi de Charney (Preceptor of Normandy), who were both burned at the stake, because they accepted their sentence in silence."
One states that the other two survived, while this article states otherwise. Also, Pairaud is mispelled in one of the two articles.
66.76.17.74 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Account Inconsistent with the page on Hugues de Pairaud 

message: I have changed birth and death. The sources I found were reliable. Especially I find that Alain Demurger has changed his opinion and now finds 11. March 1314 more probable than 18. March 1314. I think 11. March should be the main date. I also found some very reliable sources in addition to Demurger. 18. March is explained in the section covering his death. 18. March have been his date of death on Wikipedia for a long time so it is bound to be widely qouted, especially since one of the original sources must have been Demurger. There is no way to be certain so this is where I followed what the experts now think. They have looked at and evaluated what sources there is left. --regards ツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 13:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both need to be listed, since there isn't consensus on this in the historical community. Grandpallama (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have given several references, please see section Jacques de Molay#Death the quotations should show what the historical community agrees on. Demurger seems to be the main expert and he finds 11. March most probable, mind you probable. Yes both dates should be quoted with this in mind. I have tried to take care of the uncertainties. I have also tried to give suficcient quotations for others to be able to judge the matter. Further rewriting probably should be done.  --regards ツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 05:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth and death 

message: The source given for 1292 actually says the following (I have added Barber (2006) to the Wikipedia article that confirms 1292):
"A Templar at Beaune since 1265, Molai is mentioned as Grand Master of the Templars as early as 1298."
https://web.archive.org/web/20090310202531/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10433a.htm
Corroborated by this source:
"Molay entered the order in 1265, fought in Syria, and after 1291 was at Cyprus. He was elected grand master of the Templars about 1298." 
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jacques-de-Molay
Molay was elected grand master in 1297 according to this source:
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_builder_1916_june.htm (JACQUES BERNARD DE MOLAI BY BRO. G. ALFRED LAWRENCE, NEW YORK. The Builder Magazine. June 1916 - Volume II - Number 6.)
A recently discovered letter from January 1296 calls Molay the humble master of the militia of the Temple (in Latin):
"A recent finding by Beatriz Canellas, Head of the Description Department at the Archives of the Crown of Aragon, has allowed us to find an unknown letter from Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Order of the Knights Templar, addressed to Ramon de Bell-lloc, Commander of the Order, dated 21st January 1296." https://www.culturaydeporte.gob.es/archivos-aca/en/destacados/carta-de-molay.html
1292 is supported here:
"Until recently, Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar, was portrayed negatively in the historiography. At best, he was seen as a man of action, who happened to be often confused, but never as a diplomat. The Templars, however, played a significant role between the Latin sovereign powers. Elected in spring 1292, in a very difficult international context, Jacques de Molay immediately launched large-scale undertakings, in which, more than his predecessors, he was influential and above all acted independently."
https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-revue-historique-2020-4-page-3.htm (The making of a diplomat: Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, and his journeys to the West (1292–1296). Philippe Josserand. In Revue historique. Volume 696, Issue 4, October 2020, pages 3 to 21.) 
And an authoritative summary from a leading scholar on the Templars:
"The apparently demoralised Theobald Gaudin did not long outlive the
fall of Acre. Sometime before 20 April, 1292, he had been succeeded by a
highly experienced Burgundian Templar of twenty-seven years’ standing
called James of Molay.43 [...] 43 This date is the first mention of Molay as grand master, Forey, Corona, no. 36, pp. 405–6. [...] Forey, A. J., The Templars in the Corona de Aragón, London, 1973."
Barber, Malcolm (2006). The Trial of the Templars. Cambridge University Press. pp. 18, 315 and 374. .
Here is appendix no. 36 from Forey:
https://libro.uca.edu/forey/append1.pdf
Bevidsthed (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date when Molay was elected grand master