I actually root for the restoration of the Knights Templar and the disgrace of Phillip the Fair. In point of fact the lands were normally seized by the sovereign, not the Pope but it appears they "heirs" are not serious about the money.
One interesting question and it seems air tight defense for the Pope is that the "heirs" appear to be "heirs of the body." The Knights Templar could leave the Order after ten years and marry, or could join the Order after having sired children. However, as a corporate body sanctioned by the Pope when he dissolved them it seems no successor group, other than the Pope, could sue on their behalf. The bodily heirs of the actual knights, would not be entitled to their property even if they had never been dissolved. All property, nontaxable by a Christian King by order of the Pope, was solely in the possession of the Knights Templar and not owned individually by any knight.
The Pope appears to have an infallible defense. Nonetheless, he should restore the Knights to honor, and have them track down and kill Dan Brown.
1 comment:
So who would you represent, JJV? The Pope, with his airtight legal argument, or the unjustly wronged Knights Templar? Also, would the Knights, if restored, also have to kill Umberto Eco?
Post a Comment