the Charing Cross connection

[New Gold]

I got that off wikipedia man. You can't have been looking too hard.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Smithbrown]

1593. That's three hundred years after the death of Queen Eleanor. 300 Years! That's not a 14th century reference, you know. Besides, I thought this was LokiBlossom's topic; why are you doing all the running around?

 

[New Gold]

There were actually twelve Eleanor crosses erected all over the country. Each one is named after the location within which it resides.

We have already established where the name "Charing" comes from.

This is the only theory that comes close to explaining the original name of New Ross, the location of a fourteenth century castle.

I agree with Loki on a lot of points. Including this one. Which is why I'm defending his post while he's offline. I'm sure he'll be back.

In the New World the templars believed themselves to be free from the rule of the European monarchy. The monarchy was in effect their greatest opponent.

So it stands to reason that by naming their own settlement after the king's monument to his dead queen, they were effectively naming themselves the kings of the new world.

 

[lokiblossom]

1593. That's three hundred years after the death of Queen Eleanor. 300 Years! That's not a 14th century reference, you know. Besides, I thought this was LokiBlossom's topic; why are you doing all the running around?

Umm, I won't be running around either after this post, your getting kind of edgy, something I don't need.

I had mentioned Peele because he was referencing the actual dedication of the site by Edward in his play. I do not know if he got it word for word or not, but that is a reference. If you can find that it wasn't called Charing Cross that early (1291 to 1294) then post it, other then that, I don't care.
I really do not have to prove anything to anybody, if someone is interested in what I have to say, then great, and I will answer honest questions.

 

[Smithbrown]

So I must assume after all that umbrage, neither of you can prove that the phrase "Charing Cross" was in use as early as 1307.
No, you don't have to prove anything to anyone, but you are the ones making the claims on a public forum, so I do not see why you should be surprised if someone actually asks you to prove them. All of us can say anything we like, proving them is quite a different matter. I think you said somewhere you were writing a book, I hope your research is a little more copper-bottomed than we have seen so far.

And, no, it's not me who's getting edgy. You pair can't seem to cope with simple disagreements or requests for more information or proof.

No skin off my nose, but then it's not me posting unsustainable claims.

 

[lokiblossom]

It is my belief that the templars did in fact locate the Ark on their expedition to Jerusalem.

The Ark in my opinion is the greatest artifact of them all, one that could certainly not have been given to the church.

You could be correct, and it is certain that was the one item they were most intent on finding. The first nine Templars were from Troyes as was Bernard of Clairvaux who campaigned for the order.The Jewish Rabbi of Troyes "Rashi" would have thought that it was buried under the ancient Temple of Solomon, as did most learned Jews of the period. And it is a fact that the Templars were housed in what was thought to be the Temple site. The reason that I myself don't think they found it is that they were first and foremost Catholic, and that being the mission that they were assigned, I think that they would have turned it over. But, that being said, I do think it would have been possible that it was discovered.

 

[joncutt87]

 

[New Gold]

That's the castle in New Ross. Note the location next to the bend in the river.



That is Charing Cross in London. Note the exact same location in reference to the bend in the river.

 

[lokiblossom]

Ok, let's try once more. I know that the area was called Charing in the early middle ages. Agreed
I know that King Edward I ordered a cross to be built there for his wife Eleanor of Castile in the early 1290s. Agreed.
But what I asked was what was the earliest reference to the EXACT PHRASE "CHARING CROSS". Not Charing, not the cross at Charing, but "Charing Cross". That's all, quite simple, earliest know reference?


And no, I don't think the Templars are "poking fun at monarchy". I would think they had other things on their minds in 1307.

George Peele's play dated 1593 and titled "Chronicle of King Edward the First", establishes that Edward himself requested that the site of the 12th Eleanor Cross be called "Charing Cross". "and henceforth see you call it Charing Cross." This was representing Edward's actual dedication of the cross and I would think be an accurate depiction of the event. I believe this is evidence enough that at the day of dedication (sometime prior to 1294) it was called by that name. I don't like pedant discussions, but I made this point earlier as did "New Gold" and it was basically ignored.
IMHO, the term Charing Cross was intended to replace the earlier name of Cyrringe, with Charing Cross in reference to the French term "Chere Reine" for "Beloved Queen". The reason I premise this is because in reality that is actually what happened!
For a further reference google "1300 map of London" and you will pull of many ancient maps showing Charing Cross and Temple Church.

 

[Smithbrown]

Well, as another Elizabethan playwright wrote in another Elizabethan history play, Once more unto the Breach, dear friends.
If you are seriously writing a book on medieval history you need to work with sources as close to your period as possible. George Peele is an Elizabethan poet and playwright, not a historian. Between 1300 and the time he wrote this play, an awful lot of things happened which changed people’s opinion- two kings deposed and murdered, major international conflicts, civil war, religious changes. What George Peele is writing is part entertainment and part propaganda but not accurate history. This is like claiming that Gone with the Wind is an accurate account of the Civil war. How do you know that George Peele got his facts right? He may have misunderstood, he may be just inventing that passage. He might be downright lying to pay a complement to the shopkeepers of Elizabethan Charing Cross. Even in England, we don’t use Shakespeare as historical source, except for how Elizabethans regarded their history.
Frankly this is all immaterial because all you have stated is that Charing Cross is half a mile from Temple Church and that there is a Charing Cross in New Ross. Do you know when the name in Canada was adopted? Seems far more likely to have been carried there by later Londoners than Templars who have no real connection to Charing Cross. On the other hand I could understand if they named the river Thames since you can stand on the steps of Temple Church and throw stones at the Thames. Lot closer than new-fangled Charing Cross.
Your argument, by the way, also depends on the Templars being very familiar with recent London landmarks. I wonder what percentage of the Templars were English (or Scots) in the early 14[SUP]th[/SUP] century.

 

[lokiblossom]

Well, as another Elizabethan playwright wrote in another Elizabethan history play, Once more unto the Breach, dear friends.
If you are seriously writing a book on medieval history you need to work with sources as close to your period as possible. George Peele is an Elizabethan poet and playwright, not a historian. Between 1300 and the time he wrote this play, an awful lot of things happened which changed people’s opinion- two kings deposed and murdered, major international conflicts, civil war, religious changes. What George Peele is writing is part entertainment and part propaganda but not accurate history. This is like claiming that Gone with the Wind is an accurate account of the Civil war. How do you know that George Peele got his facts right? He may have misunderstood, he may be just inventing that passage. He might be downright lying to pay a complement to the shopkeepers of Elizabethan Charing Cross. Even in England, we don’t use Shakespeare as historical source, except for how Elizabethans regarded their history.
Frankly this is all immaterial because all you have stated is that Charing Cross is half a mile from Temple Church and that there is a Charing Cross in New Ross. Do you know when the name in Canada was adopted? Seems far more likely to have been carried there by later Londoners than Templars who have no real connection to Charing Cross. On the other hand I could understand if they named the river Thames since you can stand on the steps of Temple Church and throw stones at the Thames. Lot closer than new-fangled Charing Cross.
Your argument, by the way, also depends on the Templars being very familiar with recent London landmarks. I wonder what percentage of the Templars were English (or Scots) in the early 14[SUP]th[/SUP] century.

OK then simply google "1300 map of London" and you will see where Charing Cross was located. There are quite a few early maps that show both Charing Cross and Temple Church.

What percentage were English or Scotch? Why don't you read up on that and then come back for more discussion.

What does the river Thames have to do with a discussion about a beloved Queen or Chere Reine?

 

[Smithbrown]

Thank you but I don't need to google them. I know that part of London very well; why I was there only a week ago. But I see you still cannot locate a 14th century reference to the EXACT PHRASE "Charing Cross". Never mind.
No, I am afraid you will have to do your own research.
The reference to the Thames is that you claimed that Charing Cross is very close to the Temple. That there is a Charing Cross on Nova Scotia. Therefore it was founded by Templars. My argument is the Thames is closer to the Temple. there is a Thames on Canada- was that founded by the Templars, too? Same logic, you see.
The Medieval Tube Map | Londonist

 

[lokiblossom]

Thank you but I don't need to google them. I know that part of London very well; why I was there only a week ago. But I see you still cannot locate a 14th century reference to the EXACT PHRASE "Charing Cross". Never mind.
No, I am afraid you will have to do your own research.
The reference to the Thames is that you claimed that Charing Cross is very close to the Temple. That there is a Charing Cross on Nova Scotia. Therefore it was founded by Templars. My argument is the Thames is closer to the Temple. there is a Thames on Canada- was that founded by the Templars, too? Same logic, you see.
The Medieval Tube Map | Londonist

No, your argument was that the actual name Charing Cross did not exist in the late 13th century. As I said there are many 1300 maps of London online that show Charing Cross, and it is located very close to temple Church. If yo were to google one of these 1300AD maps you would see that there was very little standing between the two sites.
I do understand though why you refuse to simply type the words "1300 map of London" into google to prove yourself wrong.

btw, your tube map is from the 1th century, nice try though.

 

[Smithbrown]

As I have said before, there was a cross standing at Charing; agreed. All I am saying is that you have not provided proof it was called "Charing Cross" in 1300. There are no 14th century maps of London surviving, these are modern maps showing medieval sites. That is not the same thing. Do you seriously no understand the point I am making here?

Have you actually consulted any genuine, 14th century records, sources, chronicles in your work? or is all based on Elizabethan plays?

 

[Smithbrown]

oh, and as my tube map includes the Novum Templum, it is later than the 11th century.

 

[lokiblossom]

As I have said before, there was a cross standing at Charing; agreed. All I am saying is that you have not provided proof it was called "Charing Cross" in 1300.

Yes I have, the fact is you will not accept the work of learned historians as you will not be proven wrong.

As for your tube map, the reference for it says 11th century, but you are correct Temple Church was built in the 12th century, in 1161 to be exact. That is included in my book, as is the 1300 London map that clearly shows Charing Cross by historian William R Shepherd.

 

[Smithbrown]

You have not actually mentioned the work of learned historians, until the last mailing.

Well my map of medieval London shows the way Fleet Street and the Stand. Leaving Temple Church and heading towards Charing Cross, you pass St Dunstans in the West, St Clemant Danes and Mary Le Strand (all churches); the Savoy Palace and the London palaces of a number of bishops: Exeter, Bath and Wells, Llandaff, Chester, as well as a number of medieval inns. Can you also parallel these in New Ross? (Mary D Lobel, The City of London, Oxford University Press, 1989).

But as I have said repeatedly, you need to go back to contemporary sources for real research.

 

[New Gold]

So Smithbrown, your point is that Loki can't locate a fourteenth century source naming the location Charing Cross, and when he provides you a map from that time period with "Charing Cross" on it, you change your argument, to:

"Why didn't the templars name a bunch of other things in New Ross after places in London"

You are completely missing the point. The main reason they picked Charing Cross is because of the reference to a beloved queen.

The templars were likely in possession of the Holy Grail, which is somehow connected to Mary Magdalene, whom the templars would have considered a true queen. The wife of the true king, Christ.

By setting up their own Charing Cross in the new world, the knights were expressing that they were free of the rule of the european monarchs, and that they were loyal to the truly divine queen.

 

[Smithbrown]

Sorry, New Gold, that is not an accurate account of this exchange. I have given up trying to explain to you and LokiBlossom that a 20th century map showing 14th century London with a feature labelled "Charing Cross" (modern evidence) is not the same as the phrase "apud CharingCrosse" in a medieval document (contemporary evidence). The reason I mentioned all those places is because LokiBlossom rashly claimed that Temple Church and Charing Cross were "very close" and "there was very little standing between the two sites". Both these statements were incorrect, hence the list of properties as you walk from one to the other.

Now New Gold, you really are confused. I am sure you both agreed right back at the beginning of this topic, that Charing meant a bend in the river. So why suddenly start dragging in Dear queens when it suits you? Puzzling.

I assume, New Gold, you are an adult and live in the free world so you can believe whatever you like. But so can I. I believe that the stories of the Templars and Mary Magdalene awash on the internet are a modern myth. In this godless world, some people still need to believe in some over-arching plan. Templars does it for some, not for me. You are posting on a public forum so must expect to provide proof if asked. What you describe are modern sentiments, not medieval.

 

[New Gold]

Sorry, New Gold, that is not an accurate account of this exchange. I have given up trying to explain to you and LokiBlossom that a 20th century map showing 14th century London with a feature labelled "Charing Cross" (modern evidence) is not the same as the phrase "apud CharingCrosse" in a medieval document (contemporary evidence). The reason I mentioned all those places is because LokiBlossom rashly claimed that Temple Church and Charing Cross were "very close" and "there was very little standing between the two sites". Both these statements were incorrect, hence the list of properties as you walk from one to the other.

Now New Gold, you really are confused. I am sure you both agreed right back at the beginning of this topic, that Charing meant a bend in the river. So why suddenly start dragging in Dear queens when it suits you? Puzzling.

I assume, New Gold, you are an adult and live in the free world so you can believe whatever you like. But so can I. I believe that the stories of the Templars and Mary Magdalene awash on the internet are a modern myth. In this godless world, some people still need to believe in some over-arching plan. Templars does it for some, not for me. You are posting on a public forum so must expect to provide proof if asked. What you describe are modern sentiments, not medieval.

I am sure Loki is digging up more evidence as we bicker. But this is a moot point. We have a clear reason for the naming of this place as "Charing Cross" and it is still named that to this day.

You are attempting to pull this theory apart because it doesn't sit well with you. You aren't thinking objectively.

The place in London was named "Cherring" after the old english "cierring" meaning turning, because it was located beside a 90 degree bend in the river.

When the cross was erected, it became known as "Cherring Cross". How are you not following this?

The cross was erected as a monument to the king's "dear queen". Throw away the "chere reine" part of the hypothesis and it still makes complete logical sense.

You are forgetting another important factor. The Eleanor cross at Charing was erected in the 1290s, only a few years before the templars embarked on their journey to the new world. So it would have been fresh in their minds, as it was probably getting a lot of attention at the time.

Especially since it was less than a mile from the Temple Church, which would have served as a central location for the templar order.

It is arguable whether or not I am an adult, or whether I live in the free world.

What you are asking for in terms of "proof" does exist if I had to bet. I'm sure Loki will find it. I can't be bothered to dig that hard for somebody who doesn't actually want me to find anything. Maybe on my own time.