Carmain

"You've suddenly gone very quiet with regards to the Temples de
Rougemont - they were your star performers just a brief time ago
have you dropped them now just because they don't fit?"

After telling this group I was deluded about there being a Du Temple
de Rougemont, and after finding out he was wrong, Tim Carmain become
real snide and nasty. He threw Boisrouvray in my face saying Guy Du
Temple married her, she the owner of an estate named Rougemont.

This is typical of the Smirking Scholars who think they OWN the
dead, especially the royal and dead.

Here is Countess Albina de de Boisrouvray sitting behind her close
kin-folk, the Rainiers of Monaco and the Comte de Rosemont.

I laugh in your fave, Carmain, you little pirg!

Jon

"group photo
Css Albina de Boisrouvray, Pss Caroline and Pc Ernst August, Prince
Rainier, Pss Antoinette, Bss Elizabeth Ann de Massy, Pc Albert)

http://worldroots.com/brigitte/royal/gifs2/grimaldifam2001-27.jpg
http://worldroots.com/brigitte/royal/royal12l.htm
http://worldroots.com/brigitte/royal/gifs/carolinemonaco13.jpg
http://worldroots.com/brigitte/royal/caroline1.htm

Mirror room, Grimaldi Palace: first row: Ernst, Caroline - 2nd row,
witnesses: Spyros Niarchos and Countess Albina of Boisrouvray -
third row: Caroline's children, 4th row: Ernst's children

Prince Rainier's titles is that of "Comte de Rosemont" - again, it's
just
> the bold assumptions you're making on how it came to be so that
are without
> merit. No one takes issue with a family called Rosemond or
Rosamund coming
> from Basle - just the assumption that these, too, are the same
family as the
> Chambrun-Uxeloups or the long-extinct Rougemonts. And now that at
least
> some documentary evidence has turned up in the Grand Armorial de
France to
> show the existance of a family called "du Temple de Rougemont", no
one is
> disputing their existence either. The problem is that their name
is derived
> from a completely different estate called Rougemont on the other
side of
> France, which they acquired by marriage
> in 1672 from another family not called Rougemont, Rosemont,
Rosemond, or
> anything of the sort. You've suddenly gone very quiet with
regards to the
> Temples de Rougemont - they were your star performers just a brief
time ago
> - have you dropped them now just because they don't fit? It must
be nice to
> have a "reversible" genealogy!


--- In templars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Timothy de Carmain-Perillos"
<pommarede@xxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> >From: prosemont@xxxx
> >Reply-To: templars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: templars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: ONE MORE TIME!
> >Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:14:53 -0000
> >
> >Tippity-tap - STOMP! STOMP!
> >
> >Here is a genealogy that shows an Alix de Chambrun d'Uxeloup de
> >ROSEMOND amongst many royals. Where have we seen this name before?
> >Let us turn to the second part of Andre Douzet's expert testimony
in
> >his article 'Templar Treasure' "the search begins" where we find a
> >d'Uxeloup de ROSEMONT digging into the walls of Arginey Castle:
> >
> >http://www.tournemire.net/nathalie.htm
> >
> >http://users.pipeline.com.au/eraferfo/Templars2.htm
> >
> >Here is another Dynastie of Monaco page that shows they were the
> >Counts of ROSEMONT, Ferretti, Belfort, and Than, which are next to
> >each other. The Wurttenburgs are also here:
> >
> >http://web.genealogie.free.fr/Dynastie%20de%20Monaco.htm
> >
> >Until futher evidence is produced, much of what is written about
the
> >Templars and the Holy Grail, is myth and legend. I have provide
much
> >evidence that the Rougemont/Rosamond/Rosemond/Rosemont
> >family/families have been at the core of much legend, and much
fact,
> >sourrounding the themes of these mysteries. One can say they own
> >these legends, as I count three generations of real Rougemonts who
> >have been searching for the Templar Treasure, the Temple
artifacts,
> >and the Hermetic secrets - five if you count the Rougemonts
> >in 'Aureol'.
>
> What you've done, John, is taken every mention could could find
with an
> Internet search engine of several different names OF SEVERAL
UNRELATED
> FAMILIES and attempted to tie them all together into one neat
little
> package. You've taken one researcher's work which dealt with ONE
of these
> families, and
>
> No one is challenging the existence of the handful of people
you've turned
> up on the net, John. No one challenges the fact that the Chambrun-
Uxeloup
> family acquired the chateau of Rosemont - what I dispute is your
assumption
> that this family is identical to the Rougemont family - the
Viscounts of
> Besancon - whose members you keep finding genealogical references
to on the
> net. Are you familiar with the term "extinct" - as in the
Rougemonts were
> "extinct" in the 15th century? No one disbelieves the fact that
among
> Prince Rainier's titles is that of "Comte de Rosemont" - again,
it's just
> the bold assumptions you're making on how it came to be so that
are without
> merit. No one takes issue with a family called Rosemond or
Rosamund coming
> from Basle - just the assumption that these, too, are the same
family as the
> Chambrun-Uxeloups or the long-extinct Rougemonts. And now that at
least
> some documentary evidence has turned up in the Grand Armorial de
France to
> show the existance of a family called "du Temple de Rougemont", no
one is
> disputing their existence either. The problem is that their name
is derived
> from a completely different estate called Rougemont on the other
side of
> France, which they acquired by marriage
> in 1672 from another family not called Rougemont, Rosemont,
Rosemond, or
> anything of the sort. You've suddenly gone very quiet with
regards to the
> Temples de Rougemont - they were your star performers just a brief
time ago
> - have you dropped them now just because they don't fit? It must
be nice to
> have a "reversible" genealogy!
>
> >To be accused of being "mad", and of glomming on to these
mysteries,
> >is an insult and libalous! I have also been accused of being
boring
> >by one of the Fact-Faciests who have glommed on to these mysteries
> >concerning much royalty, and, becauce they can get SOME facts
> >straight, and find SOME fault in other subscribers, they THINK
they
> >are king of the heap! They are mere Fools atop their own dung!
>
> You're not mad at all, John - I would even go so far as to say
that you're
> really not even delusional; for you to be so, you would really
have to
> believe everything you're putting out there. I don't believe for
a minute
> that you really do. I think you see the flaws in your own
reasoning, the
> weaknesses, the generalizations, the complete lack of foundation
for
> everything you claim. I think you're deluded only in the idea
that you
> think you might be convincing. You're not, and I think that's
what makes
> you really angry, causing these splendid tirades. People resort
to this
> sort of attacking behavior only when they know that fact and
reason has
> failed them. You know you've failed, John - you're only keeping
up the
> pretence in the hope that you might salvage something tangible to
take to
> the next list on your "hostile takeover" tour.
>
> >Until all the facts are in, only the legend and they myth is real?
> >If so, then the Rougemonts MAY OWN this study, and anyone who
thinks
> >they can own it by becoming a Fact-Faciest, is a parasite! The
> >Templars are said to be protecting a Holy Bloodline. Perhaps. But
> >they say they were founded to protect the innocent. No one on this
> >Templar list stepped forward to protect me from slander, and
> >harassment....and protect this quest from the LIARS!
>
> Maybe your claims are indefensible - did you stop to consider the
idea that
> people just might not want to be associated with them? Ever try
to figure
> out why?
>
> >On webroots, in the Rosamond search, Jimmy Rosamond posted this
> >message in April 2001. I did not read it till two months ago. I
will
> >quote half of it:
> >
> >"Hello Byron. Welcome to our list. Regarding the Irish
> >Rosamond/Roseman/Rosemond family, they are said to be descended
from
> >a Segeant James ROSEMOND from Basle Switzerland. This same
Sergeant
> >is also, by family legend, the ancestor of a large portion of
> >ROSAMONDS in the US today. The legend has it that Sergeant
Rosemond
> >was a Huguenot who left France at the revocation of the Edict of
> >Nantes. That happened in 1689 if my memory serves me correctly.
> >However, a small book titled "History of the Rosemond Family" by
> >Leland Eugene Rosemond indicates that the Sergeant probably came
from
> >somewhere along the Swiss-French border. The same book gives
Sergeant
> >James Rosemond's earliest ancestor as Erhart de ROUGEMONT."
> >
> >"His sons name was recorded as Hans ROSEMOND. Erhart de ROUGEMONT
was
> >supposedly born sometime before 1495. The book mentions that
research
> >by Peter Rosemond of Holland, shows a record that indicates that
> >prior to living in Basle, the family resided in Holland up to
1338,
> >and they are DESCENDED FROM AN ESTATE ROSEMONT near Belfort in
France
> >where there is a nearby villiage called ROUGEMONT."
>
> Sounds like Mr. Rosamond could use the services of a qualified
genealogist -
> his intentions are reasonable, but the reliance on legends renders
the facts
> questionable.
>
> TCP




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Templar-de-Rosemont/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Templar-de-Rosemont-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/