Talk:Scottish Knights Templar

message: I want clarification that the Non Masonic Organization does not share any history with the Jacobite cause or the House of Stewart, and does not share any history or association with Masonic Templarism. I like the pictures, let me know when you guys "RENT" the chapel again.
I find it interesting how this Non-Masonic organization conviently writes itself into the Masonic History regarding the Jacobites and the Pretender King. Even going so far as to put it on thier "offical" website.(Just Goes to show don't believe everything that is written). Its pretty obvious that this so called priory is looking for legitimacy. Oh well, I guess not everyone can be a Mason. It should be noted that this organization has never had a legitimate head of state or member of any Royal house as its Master. That it was founded in 1804 as part of enumenical christian lay organization called the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem and shares no difinitive history or association with the well documented Freemasonry of the Sinclair family, therefore has no real connection to Rosslyn (Not forgetting that Rosslyn has more legitimate Masonic references in its architecture than Templarism,inevitable, since there are no architectural or sculptural references to Templars at all). 
Based on this I also ask that "SKT1314" cease from citing his website as a legitimate reference when its is obviously biased, has no basis in true Templar History (Remember Templars did not exist after 1314, Prince Charles was a Mason not a Templar).
and not written by a legitimate scholar.
 
verifiable content? When is a bias website with no annotated references of its own verifiable content? when cited "AS A REFERENCE" Oh yeah my history, well not everyone likes to hear the truth or compromise and they would rather post slander than engage in educational debate. I could just as easily post negative feedback on your page as anyone could on mine. Sorry if I put exclusively Masonic matierials into the page; but guess what Sinclairs were Freemasons, Prince Charles (Bonnie Prince) was a Mason. The non Masonic organization being simply that "NON-MASONIC"  does not share in the history of the Freemasonic Sinclair Family and hence does not share in the association of Rosslyn either. Like I said Rosslyn has more Masonic refrences and very little if any Templar signs. (I could just as easliy say a cross in a modern church proves that the "Templars Built it") The truth is no one even knows if Rosslyn even had anything to do with the knights templar. For all intensive purposes it could have or more likely was the final building project for a family that has a long history with the Masonic Craft guilds of the middle ages. --- It should be pointed out that the connection between Templars and Roslin is, in fact, perfectly understood by historians; there is no connection at all.
*The Sinclairs were devout Catholics who were ruined by clinging to their Catholicism in the face of the reformation ----is there any evidence to support this statement?---- there is no evidence of templar connections. Furthermore, the Templar rose/cross is more likely to be a reference to the family saint of the Sinclairs, St Catherine and her eight-spoked wheel. Devious Viper 11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification requested

message: This dispute was listed on Wikipedia:Third opinion, however as a non-expert I can't seem to make heads or tails of the debate here. What exactly is the basis for the dispute? Since BlueTemplar is the one deleting information and references, perhaps this user can explain this in layman's terms? Fagstein 05:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: I've enjoyed reading this article and the discussion above. I know that there is always controversy as to difference between the various crosses used by the different medieval military orders, and the evolution of those crosses (devices). However, in all my reading and research the eight-pointed cross shown at the beginning of the article has always been identified as the "Maltese Cross" of the Knights (Order) of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, also known as the Knights of Malta. This is the only place I've ever seen it identified as a "Templar" Cross. I'd like to see some documentation as to why it is included here as a Templar cross. PGNormand 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Maltese cross is not restricted to use by the Knights Hospitaller and is used by a variety of chivalric orders. Crosses of the same shape are used by the Order of the Bath, the Order of St Lazarus, the Order of Léopold and various others. The distinction of the cross used by the Knights Hospitaller (or the Knights of Malta as they were later known) is that it was white, not its shape. The cross used by the original Order of St. John of Jerusalem was different to the modern Maltese cross as well. ~ Brother William 12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templar vs. Maltese Cross 

message: From the website
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/church/oosj/cross.htm
The arms of the Rhodian Cross had almost, but not quite, achieved the straight lined sharp arrowhead appearance, noted from the mid 16th century onwards.
End quote.
More than 200 years after the suppression of the Order of the Temple!
It is more likely that this 1960s/70s invention is due to the tenous link to the Masonic Knights Templar who, as part of that degree grouping, include the Masonic Knights of Malta degree.  Therefore a Masonic Knight in Scotland would have both a red Templar Cross and a white Maltese Cross.
The reference to the sanctuary given by the Order of St John in 1315 refers to a holding company legally setup after the suppression called:  "The Order of St John of Jerusalem and of the Order of the Temple in Scotland"   Nothing to do with either:
- The Freemasons
- The Knights of St John
- The Knights of Malta
Modern Scottish Orders of Templars who insist on using a red Maltese Cross do so out of a lack of knowledge of their own history and a confusion that they are connected at birth to Freemasonry.
(GSGOSMTH 08:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maltese Cross- Again 

message: This Article needs to reflect that there are many unrecognised Orders of Knights Templar in Scotland most of which have less than 20 members. The particular Order relating to this article has no connection with the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (SMOTJ) (otherwise known as) Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (OSMTH) which is the International Order of Knights Templar in special consultative status with the United Nations. OSMTH has over 5000 members internationally at this time.
(GSGOSMTH 08:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you be a REAL Knight Templar (in Brisbane)?  Sorry, but all the secretive nonsense went out the door when everyone got the internet.  Is it perhaps you are  inherited some bits of tin and bumph from an elderly relative who was a member of one of the breakaway Scottish Groups in the 80s and 90s.  It ain't true unless you can prove it academically and publicly.  Otherwise, you are just part of this continue problem! 2A00:23C4:B503:201:3023:BE41:2637:A1B5 (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would the real Scottish Knight Templars Stand Up? 

message: Have attempted to fill some gaps in this article with information drawn from a number of on-line sources, brought in as references, including looking back at some previous discussion.
--Steve Zissou 17:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The modern non Masonic Groups share no history with the Templars of 1118 and the Masonic Templars of Robert the Bruce, or the "Royal House of Stewart"."
It is now clear from the earlier material in the article that there is no clear line of descent from the Medieval Templars to the Modern Groups and that the Masonic and non Masonic Templars operating in Scotland today are unrelated? --Steve Zissou 13:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest that you separate this article into two articles: 1. Masonic Knights Templar, 2. Non Masonic Knights Templar. We are two entirely separate Orders. The history of both orders is not the same. Yes the lodge for a while protected our Order but it was never fully incorporated into the Lodge. They created their own Right or Degrees which they still work today. Bernard de Linton aka Graham Russell 28th January 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernarddelinton (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of Article 

message: There is a revert war going on with this article. IP User 166.66.16.116- you keep deleting citations, and others are reverting this. You may, for all we know, have a very good reason for this, but if you do not share it we cannot decide. Could all parties please discuss the article so that the standard of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view can be achieved for its content? See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes--Steve Zissou 09:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now IP User 166.66.76.151 has deleted the same citations and this has been reverted by another user. Reference to the 166.66.76.151 's page indicates the addresses are related, so the same invitation applies, please discuss here before deleting otherwise it just looks like vandalism--Steve Zissou 10:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a new revert war going on, with one IP user deleting "European Influence" and others reverting it, but nobody is explaining why they are doing it. There may be a very good reason for this, so could all parties please discuss this section so that the standard of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view can be achieved for its content? As before please discuss here before deleting otherwise it just looks like vandalism--Steve Zissou 10:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could there be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest situation here? ("Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links".)  One party in the revert war seems involved in the website of the Commandery of St Clair which has the website "The Grand Priory of the Knights Templar in Scotland" cited in the European Influence section which 166.66.76.151 is deleting? --Kyndinos 11:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been temporarily locked for editing by new and unregistered users. They should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - proposed changes, supported by citations, should be discussed here to reach NPOV, then the lock can be removed. --Kyndinos 06:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Revert warring not acceptable'' 

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: “Not only is there much question about who precisely he was; there is even some question about whether he ever actually existed.”
Baigent and Leigh, The Temple and the Lodge, p. 145 Dikkat
:The Temple and the Lodge is, however, a novel, and therefore of rather limited use as a point of reference  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.67.155 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Temple and the Lodge is not a Novel, can you explain your point more clearly? 86.149.108.14 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Seton - more pseudo history? 

message: I believe that since this article first appeared, the cross image which has featured at top has been an eight point one.  It has recently been replaced by as unyet untagged image (this may be in breach of copyright) which appears to be from the OSMTH website. A quick review of the Scottish Templar sites linked to this article seems to show that the eight point cross is the one used by all but the French sponsored group?  Could those who originally placed the eight point cross here and those who are now removing it discuss here which cross is most relevant to this article? During the discussion let us have both images in the article, though bear in mind the untagged image may have to be deleted due to copyright? --Steve Zissou 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look's like the "cross pattee" is the one used by the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem and the eight point by Scottish Templars. Since there is a separate article about them, can't see why their cross should be here. --Sannhet 09:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The cross pattee image is from OSMTH Copyright © 2000-2007 K. Crawford.  --Dikkat 12:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, we now have three crosses, and as long as everyone is happy, they all stay, problem solved.  Please sign your contributions and use the : symbol to step it in - it makes it easier to follow the discussion. --Steve Zissou 10:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The OSMTH/SMOTJ group wants to amend the text to read from "most" to "some" Scottish Groups using the eight point cross. A survey of the links to this site indicates that at least 3 of the Scottish groups are using the eight point cross, the Grand Priory of Scotland, Militi Templi Scotia and The Ancient Scottish Military Order of Knights Templar, and two groups, one Scottish/French and the other Scottish/American, each using a different cross. Is this correct? In the meantime, have re-written the text to record actual use rather than a comparitive, in the hope this is more neutral.--Steve Zissou 12:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross Talk 

message: Since this article is attracting concern from medievalist(s?), and the medieval period is duplicated in the article Knights Templar in Scotland, already the subject of resolved merger discussion in that article, the solution would appear to be to remove the first section which is duplicated in that article, remove it from the medieval knights templar series, perhaps that will take the heat out, and avoid confusion? --Steve Zissou 12:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medieval v. Modern

message: :This is a standard pdf logo, what does this prove? --Quaerere Verum 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that is being looked for here is a verifiable reference for the statement that the St Clair Commandery is "...a registered Scottish body in its own right", and there appears to be at least one which is not available for linking on-line. The pdf document posted by Paulmagoo has been removed from Wikipedia:images as it was not an image that could be linked to Wikipedia articles. Could the document referred to not be posted on the St Clair Commandery's website? The reference in the article is to the Charter from the Grand Priory of France which seems appropriate enough. --Steve Zissou 22:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation provided by Quaerere Verumis the Companies House record of "Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani - The Grand Priory Of The Knights Templar In Scotland Ltd". The website  www.scottishknights.org states that it is "working under the authority of The Commandery of St Clair, Edinburgh, No S1,Grand Priory of France (GPFT), OSMTH International." Companies House is the register for limited companies in the United Kingdom.   --Kyndinos 10:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have deleted the above press release because Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service, nor is it a newswire service, nor is it an advertising outlet. - Jehochman  Talk 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof that the New Scottish Body is registered

message: I took just a quick coursory look at web references used, and they likely do not meet the standards for WP:RS.  Please editors of this review each reference critically to ensure that the highest quality ones are used.  Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability.  --Rocksanddirt 17:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far "Dr Chris Brown" who keeps editing this and related articles using a variety of IP addresses, (see User talk:217.43.68.251),has not provided any, despite requests, which is why his  edits are reverted. It looks like sock puppetry.Alithea 07:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: previously signed as "CsinC" ,. Now he is "Dr Chris Brown".  The only consistency is the lack of references. 217.44.85.35 12:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting that this anonymous editor adds previously undisclosed detail to the identity of an editor of this and similar articles (e.g. Talk:Knights Templar in Scotland - "Dr Chris Brown" and his unreferenced edits)who also added idiosyncratic opinions without references. It is a possible sign of meat puppetry. Such edits will always be reverted. --Simsek 11:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Lamberton is not mentioned in this article, and the linked Knights Templar in Scotland has not shown a 1312 date for some time, so I am not sure what "docbro" is trying to say here. This "editor", who I note has yet to provide even one citation should read before writing. And I also believe "docbro" and "csinc" are one and the same, as noted above, a single-issue editor with an agenda of his own. Until he can substantiate his argument, which does not seem to change, and may well be valid, but without it, we cannot be sure and so no further comment is necessary. --Kyndinos 15:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Generally 

message: Please note that this page is to discuss the article, and not the topic. This page is not a discussion forum on the subject. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What has this to do with talk page discipline? --80.225.167.3 16:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk-page discipline

message: The St Clair Templars keep adding their own site to the external links of this article, which other users are reverting, which is fine, as they are linked to the article itself. Editors are invited to review the links, and I am going to delete a few now, and if there is a good reason to retain them please discuss here. --Sannhet 20:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC
:Discuss external links here & propose them with reasons if you are the website owner. Bernardlinton's link moved from External links to his post in the article. St Clair Templar's took Bernardlinton's post as an excuse to re-duplicate their link.  This is excessive and has been refactored. --Sannhet 15:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links clean-up 

message: If you insist on using an article about me then I must insist that it is used in its context full and not otherwise Graham Russell AKA Bernard.  Or should I phone Kath Gourlay from the Scotsman to send you a formal letter on behalf of that media?  Signed Paul McGowan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.230 (talk • contribs) 
: 212.100.250.230, are you saying that you are also User:Paulmagoo, and that your real name is Paul McGowan? --Elonka 21:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if you see any information about yourself that is incorrect, please feel free to delete it on sight.  The article is definitely in need of major cleanup, and I have tagged it accordingly.  --Elonka 22:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paulmagoo Using my name in Vain]

message: Prepped for the media reports of the 25/10/2007
217.42.205.151 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Reports from the Publication of the Vatican Documents 

message: This article has been tagged for  Conflict of Interest  and  Cleanup for over 2 weeks now indicating it may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
User:Paulmagoo has acknowledged a clear interest in the article but has alleged that others, amongst them he suggests Graham Russell? do too. Could editors please check their contributions and/or citations so the tags can be removed?  --Sannhet 11:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is needed for someone to go through and either cleanup the article, or simply remove problematic sections.  We could delete questionable paragraphs, or move them to the talkpage.  If we don't have someone who's qualified to rewrite the article, I've often seen cases where someone just reduces the entire article to a stub, as a way of "starting fresh". --Elonka 16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not sign your contributions if you want to be recognised? Paulmagoo has an account. --86.154.120.90 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bernardlinton is a blocked Sockpuppet of Paulmagoo? --Quaerere Verum (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter. 

message: IOGT is a recent invention of Mark Amaru Pinkham in Sedona, ArizonaPicture, who attracts followers by offering, amongst other "secrets", a revelation of the lost "Goddess Tradition" and Alchemy, of which there is no evidence in the Templar tradition (see Templar History/Forum for further discussion). If they want, they can prove their claims in their own article, if they can get support for one, and  Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is a place for self promotion, it has no place here. BlueTemplar12 11:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: International Order of Gnostic Templars article created. --Dikkat (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I have nominated the IGOT article for deletion. Feel free to opine at the AfD. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[International Order of Gnostic Templars]] - IOGT 

message: An anonymous IP user is deleting the external link The Rosslyn Templar - Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, by R.T. McPherson, 1836. The website linked is about a book about a picture of Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, and the book deals with the Scottish Knights Templar. There has been a link to the picture on its auction site on this article for a long time. The IP user wrote on his last delete Advertising a book about rosslyn has nothing to do with scottish knights templars. It's a book about a picture of a Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, not about Roslin, it's about the Scottish Knights Templar, and their connection with the Chapel, so it's hard to see why it shouldn't be here, as well as the old link to the picture at auction. --Steve Zissou (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because if you had read the book you would realise its nothing to do with this article on the scottish knights templar.  Let it reside on the rosslyn chapel article where its best suited. (and thats a stretch because its an artists impression of both).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.251.159 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 18 of The Book The Rosslyn Templar by Ashley Cowie, published by Luath Press Ltd, £9.99, hardback, . "...there was certainly a resurgence of interest in the Knights Templar in the 18th Century in Scotland..."; Page 20 deals with Alexander Deuchar and the Scottish Templars, page 37 is about the Templars and the Chapel which ".. at the time of writing, is the earliest record indicating a possible link between the Knights Templar and Rosslyn Chapel. This is all relevant to the current article.  The link should stay. --Quaerere Verum (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, the book provides no factual evidence and is based on an artists impression of a "re-enactor" who was present for a medivel fate.  The author has no evidential "expert" status here and makes a number of serious historical errors in the book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.251.159 (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with anonymous IP User who appears alone in her/his view. The external link and all Google searches to the book show both to be relevant to this article.  Use this page to discuss the article not the book. --Simsek (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So I can take a photograph of the chapel, write a spurious book with little factual content and then wiki accepts it???  So Simsek, I am ready to escalate this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.251.159 (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be aware edit warring is not allowed and the anonymous IP is in danger of being blocked. The IP's view is out of line with a clear consensus so far. Deletions reverted. --Alithea (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Take a look at the publishers' website - the book has a 3 star rating currently based on 3 reviews and 185 votes - 177 for and 8 against (and there was never a book printed that somebody didn't disagree with). Anyhow, this page is to discuss the article, and based on consensus this still looks like a valid External link and Further reading. --Steve Zissou (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *  The 185 ratings are not for the book they are ratings for the reviews.  There is only 3 reviews posted on the publishers site and thats because the publisher removes the reviews he doesn't like .....Fact! Paulmagoo (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.rosslyntemplar.com/index.html The Rosslyn Templar - Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, by R.T. McPherson, 1836]  

message: From the Masonic/Non Masonic Section of the Article, Archie Young writes:
"When a schism occurred within M.T.S. ( Militi Templi Scotia ) seven members from that Order decided to leave and start their own Commandery, the Commandery being The Jacques de Molay 1314 Commandery. Although there is no proof we believe that we come from the Alexander Deuchar line and quite possible that of Prince Charles Edward Stuart ( Bonnie Prince Charlie ). "
The main issue with this is parentage or lineage.  The quote clearly states that 7 members of MTS schism'd then met together to create another group.  There is no mention of where the Charter came from, as Charters need to be allocated by a higher authority, it is clear that this Commandery of Jacques de Molay and its founding of a Grand Priory are in fact bogus.  One cannot just create a Chartered group because one feels the need.  This is why Templarism becomes a laughing stock in the eyes of the world as it has little or no self governance.
The author continues to admit that there is no proof that his group continued from Alexander Deuchar's Masonic Group and inflates the situation by suggesting that they now come from a lineage of Bonnie Prince Charlie.  No proof has been offered in either case.  Perhaps of all this nonsense the author may want to take the opportunity of declaring that this new Modern Order of 2006 has no parentage past that point?Paulmagoo (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question over lineage of the "Autonomous Grand Priory of Knights Templars in Scotland" 

message: Autonomous has been used a number of times in the article without properly describing the background and context.
The use of Autonomous is getting confused and is trying to imply that organisations that are not part of an International Federation are more Autonomous than others.  This is incorrect.  Modern Templar history (Post WW11) descibes that each Chartered Country under Leuprecht or Da Sousa Fontes were indeed Autonomous.  Example the Grand Priory of the USA www.smotj.org whose Charter still today says it is Autonomous.  The right to self govern is inbedded into the rights of each of the International Association's Members.  This is for OSMTH Regency, OSMTH Knights Templar International, OIMT Conferation and the IFA.  Each of their Members are Autonomous in their own right, just as the Commandery of St Clair and its corporate body "OSMTH The Grand Priory of the Knights Templar in Scotland SC314552".  In fact, this is a legal requirement of HMRC that the body is registered and governed within the UK.  Further proof of this exists in its own bank accounts, ritual, meetings and language.
The author in the article is confusing the right to be Autonomous with the right of Parentage and his comments clearly show that his group are without a clearly defined legal parent to Charter them.
For information, the Autonomous Grand Priory of Scotland was officially chartered by Da Sousa Fontes in 1972 by the issue of Charter 029.  This is currently being held by the current OSMTH Regency Grand Priory in Scotland.  The Commandery of St Clair, A Commandery recognised by OSMTH Knights Templar International (www.osmth.org) is officially Chartered and its Charter is on display on its website www.scottishknightstemplar..org  Both these Orders remain Autonomous in Scotland.
Finally, perhaps the author of the article of the Autonomous Grand Priory in Scotland would like to print the voting of the Grand Council Election in 2012, where I believe it required to have the majority of the votes of it's members abroad to ensure the victory of the current Grand Prior, Archie Young?  Not really that Autonomous in Scotland then??? Paulmagoo (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autonomony - what does it mean 

message: As noted above Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service, nor is it a newswire service, nor is it an advertising outlet. Sannhet (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Same again. Sannhet (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:   Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to this article. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Sannhet (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored article to [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view |NPOV]] before edit war 

message: I almost removed the section "Templar survival in Scotland" because it was a combination of WP:OR, unsourced material, and WP:FRINGE material.
Schuchard is a questionable source per Seventeenth Century News, but Brill is usually reliable.  Questions of reliability aside, the source does not simply say "Dundee was wearing a Templar Cross," but according to 18th century writers Dundee was wearing a Templar cross.  Either way, either phrasing does not provide any evidence of Templar continuation.
Arcane schools is an outdated fringe source.  
"The Stuart Court in Rome: A Legacy of Exile" was being somewhat misquoted.  Since it's a good source, I left it in with a rewrite based on the actual text.
Per WP:GEVAL we do not have to, should not, and will not give equal validity to pseudohistory. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good though it is you have left your edit with a hiatus, "Later sources attribute Templar connections to" To what? Quaerere Verum (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, caffeine hadn't hit yet, will get on it now. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the full text of the quotation from "The Stuart Court in Rome: A Legacy of Exile" to the reference as well as a link to the book online and also a new reference with the full text of a quotation from a new source quoted elsewhere in this article, the "New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry 1921 by Arthur Edward Waite", again with a link to the book online, which explains in more detail how Dom Calmet's story about Viscount Dundee as supposed Grand Master of a revived Order and his wearing of the Grand Cross of the Order when he fell in in battle at Killiecrankie came about. (I could not find any reference to his wearing a Templar cross at battles only that one).  As it says in Waite's reference "We know that evidence is wanting at every point for the alleged perpetuation of the old Templar Order in connection with Masonry and that the legends of such perpetuation bear all the traces of manufacture." Quaerere Verum (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding my overhaul of "Templar survival in Scotland" 

message: The only reference for this requires me to buy and read this person's book to see the details.  I would like know exactly what they said and why their testimony would have evne been sought.  Because rather then refuting a Templar connection it sounds me like inside information on the Templars is the only reason such random nobles would have been asked to testify.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The trial appears to be that of the two remaining Knights Templar of Balantradroch, adjacent to the Sinclair seat at Roslin. The Sinclairs, as local nobility, sat in judgement, and made no attempt to defend the Templars, probably in the hope of absorbing their land and assets. There is nothing "random" about the Sinclairs. By manouvering, backstabbing, and backing the right horses, they became extremely powerful. A century and a half later, William Sinclair was also the pirate lord of Orkney and Shetland, preying on Norwegian shipping, and wealthier than the King of Scotland. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  With those motives it hardly proves they were never Templars themselves, but suggests they could be wiling to sell other Templars out.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The indictments came from Rome. Both England and Scotland put on show trials at which wrists were slapped, and the order wound up. If the Sinclairs were Templars, they would have been on the list. If the Sinclairs were Templars, they would also have taken monastic vows, and the line would have died out. Not even Robert Lomas still believes they were Templars. Please catch up. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Tempalrs clearly had ties to a lot of noble families, where or not all the members were fully ordained Knights.  Their also connected to the Stuarts and FitzAlans. --JaredMithrandir (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Templars had their hands in a lot of pockets. As a monastic order defending Outremer and protecting pilgrims, rich people gave them land to lessen their time in purgatory. Templar estates in England and Scotland were largely run by managers on behalf of the order, which would be represented on site by elderly Templars too old or disabled for battle. Part agri-business, part retirement home. Of course they interacted with the local nobility, who often licensed their private chapels from them using Templar clerics. They were cheaper and less controlling than church or state, which was a very successful business plan, since they only answered to the Pope. When the Pope dropped them, they suddenly had no friends. Your point was....? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were Templars of nobility who did reproduce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_de_Sabl%C3%A9 --JaredMithrandir (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinclaris testifying against the Templars