Talk:Rosslyn Chapel

message: The chapel is described in your text as being the choir of much larger church. This was a local belief in my childhood and was long ago disproved.Even the most cursory of examination by an architect or an artisan mason reveals the fact that the chapel is complete as intended by the builder and the "unfinished" part is merely another part of the symbolism of the structure. Needless to say, theories abound as to the meaning of this particular feature.
:The official site  claims otherwise. However, it may be worth mentioning the point of view that it was intended complete as-is. -- Decumanus | Talk 22:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually when Rosslyn was first built it was under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome... ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 04:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Older

message: I have removed a reference to Robert Lomas's The Hiram Key as being the first publication of the connection between Rosslyn Chapel and Freemasonry.  It was an inaccurate statement.  If any book "first publicized" this connection it would either be "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" or "Born in Blood", both of which were written several years before The Hiram Key.  More to the point, as the article states: "The chapel has long been famous for its possible connections to Freemasonry and its attendant rituals."  Since The Hiram Key was only published very recently (in 1996) it could hardly be the first publication of this long famous connection. Blueboar 18:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that is not true.  The story behind the pillar is not at all Masonic. Blueboar 20:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any similarity is only at the very surface.  Other than the fact that both stories involve a master, an apprentice (or a Mason of lesser rank) and a slaying, there is no real similarity.  In the Roslyn story, the apprentice carves the pillar while the master is away... when the master returns and sees how beautiful the pillar is, he kills the apprentice in a fit of jelousy.  In the Masonic alegory, three craftsmen (not actually apprentices) plot to obtain a "secret word" from the Grand Master, and kill him when he does not reveal the word.  Very different stories with very different morals. Blueboar 14:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Lots of things contain hidden symbolism... this does not mean there is a connection between them.  Also, we don't discuss the average layman's view... only those in reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasonry 

message: User:Kjetilbjornsrud has added a few pictures to the Freemasonry paragraph... I do have a problem with them that should be discussed.  1) I have always disagreed with the interpretation that says some of the carvings show Maize (or Indian Corn)... to me these look like styalistic leaves of lilly.  I know that  Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, and Knight & Lomas, go on and on about this some how "proves" that the Knights Templar or the Masons went to North America before Columbus, but there is no real evidence to support this.  At minimum there should be a question mark in the caption to show that this is a theory and not fact.  2) What is the evidence that the so called "Masonic Carvings" are Masonic.  I do not know what they are, but I have never come across them in Masonry.  3) If we are going to include a picture of the Apprentice Pillar, some explanation of why this is associated with Freemasonry should be included in the text. Blueboar 01:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind if the text about the carvings is reduced to simply "carvings". It is, howeever, supposed to be original from when the building was erected, though there are exaples of carvings of newer dates. --kjetilbjornsrud 08:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fwiw, the picture of the maize(?) looks different to the pictures used in tv programs when talking about the 'crops from America'. --Alf melmac 10:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were pointed out by the guide in the chapel, and I've compared my picture to pictures found in the book "Rosslyn Chapel", Earl of Rosslyn, 1997. --kjetilbjornsrud 12:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess it must be the larger picture, the tv shot showed a pretty close up view which looked like the carvings were on a horizontal plane rather than on an arch. No bother then. --Alf melmac 12:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures recently added 

message: The article makes several allusions to there being some sort of connection between the Chapel and the historical Knights Templar.  However, other than mentioning that some of the the Sinclair's were Templars, it does not really go into any details.  Now, I have heard that the connection is mostly speculation and theory, and not proven fact, but at least we could discuss what the speculations and theories are! (similar to the way we discuss some of the Masonic connection theories).  I would place this section before the section on Freemasonry (as the KTs come before the Masons historically).  I don't know enough to add it, but I would like to have it. Blueboar 23:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knights Templar 

message: Historians Mark Oxbrow, Ian Robertson  Karen Ralls and Louise Yeoman  have made it clear that the St Clair family had no connection with the Mediaeval Knights Templar. Their testimony against them at the 1309 trial is not consistent with their alleged support. In "The Templars and the Grail" p.110 Karen Ralls quoting "The Knights Templar in England" p.200-1 states that among some 50 who testified against the Templars were Henry and William Sinclair. The original source of this seems to be "Processus jactus contra Templarios in Scotia" from David Wilkins' "Concilla Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae."  Father Hay who also wrote a very brief, but sympathetic Templar history, made no connection between the Templars and Sinclairs in his work "Genealogie of the SainteClaires of Rosslyn" .
There is no proof of a marriage between Catherine St Clair and Hugh de Payens . 
The Templar connection has developed through Freemasonry in the 19th Century, and modern non-masonic Templars who claim a mediaeval St Clair connection are mistaken, and are actually following a modern masonic tradition.--Quaerere Verum 11:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Clairs and the Templars 

message: For several months I have been asking for citations to back the material in this article.  Since citations have not been forthcoming, I have now removed almost every statement that was uncited, (as per WP:V).  I have no problem with someone returning the material, provided that it is properly cited. Blueboar 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of material 

message: As I know that some people who edit this page will want to comment one way or the other, there is currently an AfD debate going on at La Merika.  Please feel free to comment. The issue is a distinct lack of citations, which raises problems with WP:FRINGE, WP:V and NOR Blueboar 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD started on related article 

message: The Apprentice Pillar is a pillar in Rosslyn Chapel, as you know. Does it really need its own separate article? ::Supergolden:: 17:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a merge is highly appropriate. Blueboar 18:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Guinnog 20:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur entirely Brendandh 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks, ::Supergolden:: 14:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: I tried understanding the (very long) 2nd sentence of the article several times, but it obviously needs punctuation or re-writing to make sense. EdX20 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True... too many people trying to put points and counter points into the same sentence.  I have re-worked it a bit to make it all makes more sense... however, perhaps this would be better being moved to a section lower down in the article. Blueboar 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing required 

message: I have a problem with this section... while I think it is probably accurate, without a source that says so, it amounts to a violation of WP:NOR. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of inspiration 

message: IP user 166.66.16.116 seems insistant that we not mention the fact that the Chapel was originally Roman Catholic... I would ask him to explain why he/she keeps removing this information.  It isn't like the information is controversial... The chapel was built prior to the reformation. Every church in Scotland was RC in those days.  The article goes on to discuss what happened after the reformation.  So why the constant removal? Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point and totally agreed, some people seem to want to write history themselves and leave the bits they find distastful out...sad. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't it built using the plan of Herod's Temple in Jerusalem and not as a Catholic chapel - in fact wasn't there nothing Christian about Rosslyn and not even space for an altar, with all Christian additions come much later than its building? Halfabeet (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Nope.  Read the sources. Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originally RC 

message: Is it appropriate to imply that there is an alternative theory to maize being a crop developed in Mexico and unknown in Europe prior to 1492?
Maize is not hypothesized to be a crop solely with American origins. That is established fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.109.53 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... the hypothesis is that the carvings are of Maize... not the origin of the plant.  I have clarified. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maize is "hypothesized"? 

message: These "boxes" are normally termed "rosettes", which see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosette_(design)
Maybe that would be a more accurate representation. 63.82.23.2 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical "Boxes" 

message: Under architecture, this: "The original plans for Rosslyn have never been found or recorded, so it is open to speculation whether or not the chapel was intended to be built in its current layout." seems to contradict this "Although the original building was to be cruciform in shape, it was never completed." Am I reading it wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction? 

message: I would be really interested in having more references about the date of construction. The official date is always stated as 1446 but in the text it is said 20 September 1456. It is very precise, where does this date come from? Is there any documents stating this date?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.20.215 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of internet sources for 20 September 1456, but I have a horrible feeling they all come from here. The Chapel are insistent on 1446, and the internal inscription says 1450 - which they ascribe to four years spent on the foundations. Is 1456 a typo for 1450? Clearly needs investigation and better references. Thanks. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I wasn't impressed by the Earl of Rosslyn's efforts either. The chapel is also careful not to dispel any myths that fill the coffers (you now have to pay the full entrance fee to browse the bookshop). Cooper's work is probably worth mining. He is a real historian and archivist, and all his work is impeccable referenced. He is also alergic to Templars. I'll be away from my own little library for about a fortnight, but I'll see what I can unearth when I get back. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Further to the above - from the Rosslyn Hoax, "Although work on Rosslyn chapel began in 1446 there was no published material available before the short description and engraving by John Slezer in 1693". We're down to surviving official documents. Robert Lomas now regards Sinclair as a pirate with political clout, reversing his previous opinions, but he hasn't published his researches (his original opinion is still selling quite well). I'll see what I can find in Edinburgh. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Cooper's Rosslyn Hoax doesn't really get started until the 16th century, as he's mainly concerned with stamping out myth and drivel. I haven't read his guide to the chapel, but it's more likely to have relevant information on the foundation, although I don't think there's much. 4 years on the foundations and the village for the workforce might be a better estimate, there are linear lumps indicating they might have done the foundations of the whole collegiate church. 1456 still looking highly suspect, and thanks for pointing it out. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of construction  

message: Far, *far*more space is given to 'debunking' than to the theories which are 'debunked'.  This section needs to be overhauled, with consideration given to the Wikipedia policy of WP:UNDUE.  Boscaswell talk 06:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is way more space out there in the real world given to madass theories about Rosslyn, the Templars and the masons than about the actual history of the chapel and its pirate founder. It is interesting and noteworthy in its own right, and needs addressed. Yes, we need more on the origin and development of the Rosslyn mythology. Feel free. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Our goal should be to find DUE weight between what academic sources say and what pop culture sources say.  Both need to be mentioned, but I don't think it is UNDUE to give significantly more weight to what academic sources say.  There is a lot of pseudo-historical fringe bullshit in the pop culture sources (the sad reality is that the fringe bullshit is far more exciting than the actual historical facts... and so you can sell a lot more books and video tapes by repeating the bullshit than you can recounting the actual facts). Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section Templar and Masonic connections and WP:UNDUE 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rosslyn Chapel. 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/20111014230635/http://www.rosslynchapel.org.uk/p/the-st-clair-family-I178/ to http://www.rosslynchapel.org.uk/p/the-st-clair-family-I178/
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) 08:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello all. Had anyone the chance to count these objects in situ? The number of them stated online in various sources is 213 still extant (two reported broke off). I found some photographs showing 9 of them on each part of a rip ( 36 in total for each bay, 144 in total of all 4 bays on the eastside) and 8 of them on each part of a transverse arch ( 16 in total for each and 80 in total of all 5 adorned arches) makes a sum of 224 "musical cubes". Any help welcome! :) Nolispy (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We merely report what reliable sources say.  Counting them ourselves would be Original research. Blueboar (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But these sources don´t report the fact shown on the photographs. So it is "forbidden" to share these obvious facts?°°Nolispy (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, yes... read the policy.  I can’t say why the sources disagree with your analysis (perhaps some of the carvings that you are counting as being “musical cubes” are not counted as such by the sources?)... the point is that when there is disagreement between what reliable sources say and an analysis based on personal observation by a WP editor, we always go with the sources. Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual number of the "musical cubes" / rossettes 

message: "Of note, while the Sinclair (surname) has its origins in Scotland, it is actually a derivation of the French surname de Saint-Clair."
Why is that "of note" in the context of the Chapel?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.94.21.117 (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "of note"