Post 270. Theological & Historical Ruminations.

we are in

AustralianPlanet

australia

 General  Theological  &  Historical   Ruminations  Leading  to  a  Greater   Understanding   of   the  Roles  of  the   Order  of  Knight-Templars. 

This    is  an   excerpt   from   a   larger   section    about   

  "Italian   Families   of  'gensferreria......'..."

written   for   my   book   still   under  Redaction,   

"  The  Collection ".

Issues  are   discussed   at   this  stage   which    open   the   way   to  some   historical/theological    considerations,    which    allow    the    introduction  of  the Order of  the  Templars   in  its    unsuppressed    key.  The  interest  in   the  Order  of   the  Templars    is   the  result   of   Members  of    'gensferreria'  having  continuously    participated   in  foundations  and  activities   of    the   Order    since    its   foundation   in  1090 AD

........................................

 The  Carolingians   had   always   been   poor  in  the  cavalry--  arm,  and  this   weackness  was   the  result   of   the   little   known  fact  that,   although    Charlemagne   was  able   to  field    about    500,000   heavy   infantry   and  to    keep  it   supplied,  with  great  difficulty,   for   a    limited   time,    say   about  three-four  months,   since   he   lacked    a  feudal   system   and    had   adopted    centralisation  and   absolutism,  a  retrogressive   step,  in  the   absence  of  the    Roman-type  Public Administrative    Service,    he   did   not  have  access   to   the  relatively  heavy  cavalry   of  the  Roman    model    that   had    become   the   special  military  resource  of  the  Armorican   Romanised   Celts   in   Brittany   and    to    a   lesser  extent  in   Normandie,    one   that   had    allowed    the   attaining  of   a   draw    against   the   Huns  at   the  battle  of   Chalons-sur-Marne   in   ca.   455 AD   and    the    victory  of   Poitier   by    Charles  Martel   in   732 AD  against  the   invading   Saracens. 

   In  fact,   while  the  Merovingians   had    received  the   allegiance    of   the   Armoricans   (   Brittany-France ),  on   the  basis   of   their   common    recognition    of    the   alliance   to  their   previous   rulers,    the  Western   Roman  Empire   of   Emperor   Honorius  (  394--423  AD),     Charlemagne  had    alienated   them    with    his    absolutism   and   centralisation  of   power.

Without   heavy   cavalry  Charlemagne   lacked   the    capacity   for   deep   penetrations  into   enemy-territory,   without  a    prior,  long   and   extensive  time  of   consolidation   and   a   build-up  of   local    power   in   conquered   territory   requiring  a   whole  generation    to  pass,   and   could  not  hold    conquered    lands    from    opponents   able   to  raid   in  depth   with   even   light  cavalry,   as  the  case   were   to  be    with   the   Breton/Normans,   the   Saracens,  the  Byzantinians    and   the   Magyars  ( modern  Hungarians).
This   is   why  Charlemagne,   in   spite  of   his   military  capacity as   a  leader,   and  a  very  long    life  as  a   ruler,   was    compelled    to   limit    his   conquests    to   the   occupation  of  Saxony,    the   Septimania   in  the   South   of  France   which   included   a  limited  territory  in  Spain,     and    to   a   stalemate   in   Southern   Italy,     facing   the    Saracens   who  had   occupied  Sicily,   the   Puglie,     and   Calabria.     This  is   evidenced    by    Maps   of   the  Carolingian   scenario     showing   Brittany   as   an   independent   and   autonomous   Region,   ruled   by    descendents  of  the  Merovingian   Princes    belonging   to   the  Desposiniic   Sang-Real. 

This  was   finally   demonstrated   when  the  Carolingians  lost   their   hold  of  the   imperial  crown    which  passed    to   Otto  I  of  the  Saxon  Dynasty  after  the   Battle  of   Lechfeld    in   955 AD    when    Otto   defeated    the    Hungarians   who  had     been  raiding  Europe    for  about  150   years,  unchallenged.

The    Saxons   had  in  fact   been  able  to  benefit  from  the   improvements    achieved   by   the   Bretons  and   Normans   in   horse-breeding   and  cavalry--equipment (  including  the  breeding   of  horses  that   produced   the     medium-weight,  flexible   and  versatile   Andalusian--type   used   by  William   the  Conqueror )  and  tactics   that    they   had   not   share  with  the  Carolingians   as   the   latter   had   been   denying,   since  the   times  of   Charlemagne,   these   two   ancient   regions  of  France,   their    ancient  priviledges  and  rights    given  them   by  Emperor   Honorius,   394-423 AD.

So,   while North Italy   may  have   been   influenced   by   Carolingian    culture,    the  South   of   Italy,  including  Sicily,   was   not.

Italian    members  of    “gensferreria/ferraria”    did  not   therefore    receive  that   training   in   cavalry    lore   that   their  Northern   cousins   developed   for   Europe   on  the   foundation  of  the  roman  model.  

Under an Imperial/Papal   domination/competition and influence, which soon developed into the struggles between the Guelfs 
( Imperial ) and the Ghibelllines ( Papal )-followers, which even shaped the crenellations on their castle-walls, Italian nobles were directed/encouraged  towards   the   exercising  of    the   Arts of Diplomacy, of the Merchant, of the Banker, Armour-making and trading, and the Whool/Clothes-trades and manufacture.

For example, the Ferrero of Biella following an adoption by a member of the Fieschi House, soon became Bankers and Minters of Money for the Papacy, a privilege they retained and exercised until the end of the Feudal System, in the times of the French Revolution.

As shown in the case of the English Ferrers, the Templar tradition has been very strong and determining of the History of their House    and    Branches and similarly of all the other great Houses of the Early Middle Ages, exercising their power from the English Midlands, known in pre-Hasting-Britain as Mercia, prior to the rise in the  power of the English Monarchy, aided by its meretricious

Parliaments, bent on unwisely controlling and reducing the balancing power vested in their Nobility. In a different way, however with a worse outcome, King Louis XIV’s excesses were achieved and perpetrated through his planned corruption and weackening of the moral fibre of his Nobility when he concentrad it in Versailles under his total control. The Syon Cope, a priestly-vestment displayed at the Victoria and Albert Museum is an important and powerful symbol/icon of these alliances based and linked   together by  Templar  Power  and  Traditions   in  the    English  Midlands.

Before talking of the Templar Order, one should receive more

information regarding the complex Christian, European/Middle-Eastern/Sumerian scenario, without the pre-judices resulting from much  malingering and the suppressed truth.

My   aim  is  a  modern   synthesis   based  on  reform   rather  than   exclusive   destruction/violence   and   revolution.    

I have previously mentioned the conversion of the Franks to the type of Roman Catholicism which was  in  accordance   with  the

Constantinian political-policy and world-view,  then  prevailing, with   its   own   historical  reasons,    therefore historically/pragmatically justifiable, although requiring to-day reformation an a new synthesis.

The judaeo-christian religious picture is confused------due to suppression of knowledge by the   Constantinian   Roman Church---- about the greater complexity of the real scenarios then in existence, as these appeared to exist,   in accordance to writers such as Sir Laurence Gardner, who  is   himself   confused,   and even in a smaller measure Edward Gibbon.    According to Gardner, sustained  by a vast array of Bibliographical works, it appears that in Northern Europe, particularly so in the British Islands as well as in Southern France there existed in the times of the Merovingians, in a more or less strong competition with the Constantinian trend of Christianity in  Rome,   branches of Christianity which drew their traditions predating the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, from ancient Sumerian sources brought to Europe by ancient Israelitic migrations from the Middle East, some of these even drawing back to the times of King Zedekiah blinded by the Babylonians and of Hebrew Prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who are believed to have landed in Ireland in ca. 590 BC. Althouh these traditions may appear to be far fetched, these traditions cannot be ignored and swept under a carpet, in the same way that the broad, cultural band of scriptural myths cannot.
We   are  dealing   here   with   Belief/Faith  rather  than  with  Truth   and   Myths   are   important,   the   alternative   being    a   Cultural/Ethical   Gap/Vacuum,   with   resulting  Chaos   and  Anarchy     labelled    Freedom   that  ignores   Duties,   hence   resulting  in  the   Reign   of  Injustice.   While  these  traditions, even when derived from events which are said to have occurred before the birth of Jesus, have come to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the descendant of King David, as the Sang Real, or Holy Grail of the later Templars, they have not accepted Jesus, as Arianism did not, as the Christ or Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God Himself, the homeostatic unity of a Perfect Divine Being, i.e., the Word, incarnated in the Perfect Man Jesus of Nazareth, born of Mary, conceived through the agency of the Holy Spirit…………..an understanding confirmed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and defined by and promulgated in what is known to-day as the Formula of Chalcedon at a later Council held at Chalcedon in 451 AD.

Many of the traditions and beliefs held in the North of Europe which have also become known as Christian, have maintained links with esoteric forms of knowledge which drew their sources from ancient Sumeria and Mesopotamia, the undeniable cradles of all Scriptural  traditions,   myths,   people,   history and Civilisations which originally contributed to our present generally accepted one, defined as judaeo-christian.

Even from the point of view of the genetic origins of Scriptural people, the Y-DNA Haplogroups of some of them, except the E1b... which reached Europe mainly via North Africa and Spain, arrived to Europe from their place  of   departure   north   of    Lake Victoria in Africa, via Mesopotamia and the Middle East.

It is a proven fact that people of the Semitic type of the I, J......

Haplogroups had already reached Scandinavia and the British Islands as early as 35,000-25,000 BC when the LGM ( Last Glacial Maximum)   occurred that closed the migratory routes. It should not be difficult to also accept later movements of semitic people using the same treks.

Successive migrations of other groups including the R1b and R1a as well as the E1b--type, followed after the end of the LGM in ca. 10,000 BC .

It follows that religious/cultural divergences that have been latent for centuries  in Europe have kept on surfacing during the course of European History and are still doing so to-day among various groups of  people. 
In ancient times, these differences resulted in religiouswars as these differences became manipulated and exploited by leaders of various communities, villages, towns, nations, political, ethnic groups etc. All in the name of the same and one God uttered in different ways.

Roman  Catholic Constantinianism bitterly fought all these divergent traditions which valued, desiring to propagate and perpetuate it, Sumerian esoteric knowledge, often of a mythological source, which sourced most scriptural writings. It is a generally accepted fact that the Hebrews became extremely racial and fanatical about the alleged purity of their race, language and history after their return from the Babylonian captivity  in  the  times  of   Cyrus,    the  Emperor  of  Persia,   550-530 BC,   when many of the books of the Old Testament became redacted on the basis of various known sources, as the result of   the  Hebrews' distorted understanding   and belief about their being the only humankind chosen and loved by God whom they saw with the anthropomorphic bias which had  been  criticised   in  earlier   times  by the great Prophets   (  Isiah   ca. 650 BC)  and later   on   by  Early Christianity   (   including  Jesus  of  Nazareth ).

So it came to pass that all other Mesopotamian/Israelitic  influences on their religion became either negated and ignored or mythologised in such a way as to give these influences a negative bias, placing these on the side of sin and impurity.

These views were totally accepted by Constantinianism and given a further Christian bias aiming at the replacement of Judaism with a Christianity    re-born   in   a   Latin   mould.

The Northern-European Christian traditions which came to be correctly embedded in the ancient Mesopotamian moulds as the result of  semitic migrations to the British Islands and to the south of France,    were bitterly fought and discouraged by Rome for the sake of the Unity of the Empire, divided by Gnostic and Arian views.

Sub-Digression Regarding
the Influences on Christian Sects
of Sumerian/Mesopotamic Traditions.

However these memories and traditions survived among the northern   aristocracies of Celtic origins and in France, among those that had come into contact with the Merovingian dynasty which had,    after the times of Clovis, 481-511 AD,  the King of the Franks, been influenced by these migrations from Palestine, even intermarrying  with   their  prominent members.   These    aristocracies   eventually  merged   and    concentrated   their   powers  through  inter-marriages,  in   the  regions  of   the  Champagne,    Flanders,    Belgium,    Holland,   Saxony, the   Luxembourg,    Alsace,  etc.   where   they   still   survive   to-day,   waiting   to   be   called   to   action   again   by  History.
However,    the  West -: 
(1)    Must  not  allow   these    Aristocrats    to    resurrect  the    independent,   competing,   selfish,    Monarchies  of  the   Past,  encouraging   their   representatives   as    belonging   to   a    perpetuated   class  of    people   historically,  intrinsically  devoted   to  our  Civilisation,     to  take  part   in   Government     as  a   'European   Aristocratic   Legislative   Assembly'   in  a   continuous  legislating--dialogue   with   Partliaments  and    senates,  etc.,  
(2)  Must  not  allow    the   Papacy   to    resurrect  the  Papal  States  in  Italy,   in  order  to  maintain   separation  between  State   and  Church,  
( 3 )   Must   declare   Religion  and  Theocracy   to   be  Costitutionally  barred   from   becoming  a  negotiable  political  issue,  regardless  of   any  future  democratic  majority    asking   for  this,  this  to  discourage/exclude  the  possibility   that   any    foreign/criminal     element/clan/race/colour/religious-ideological-group/etc...........from  planning   demographic   expansion  as   the  means   to  achieve    some  political/religious    aim/goal,    against  the   wishes   of  the  minorities,   the  general   spirit,   religious  status   quo   at  the  drafting  of  the  original  Constitution  to    remain   unchanged,   for  the  sake  of  precedent,  as  once  one   begins   drastic   changes,  as for  example   from  Monarchy    to   Republic  or   vice-versa  the  way   becomes   open    to   continuous   changes    exploitable    from   foreign/criminal   groups,
( 4 )   Must    ask  and   encourage   Christian   Churches   to    unite  in   so   far  as    recognising    that    God  is    purely   the   Holy Spirit   and  all  manners  of    worship    are   the    individual    self-expression   of     worship, in  response   to  personally   perceived    revelations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,   none  of   these    being    allowed   exclusivism   and     a  right  to    claims    to   the  possession  of  exclusive  truth. 
(5)  Must   encourage  the    study  of  Ethics,  inclusive  of   all  classical  types,   to  be  made  mandatory    to   all.   There   are  not  many    of  these  systems.      

Sir Laurence Gardner whom I do not believe to be an impostor, and supplies very extensive Bibliographies in support of his information, writes very well about these issues in several of his books, as for example, “ Genesis of the Grail Kings ”. Costantinianism eventually succeeded in predominating above all other Christian sects, however, at every sign of weackness in Rome, these traditions floated to the surface of human consciousness and never became totally eradicated.

Christianity is a system of ethics and transcendental belief that is paradoxical as it opposes the corruption inherent ( I avoid using 'intrinsic to '  ) in Creation.

Paradoxically and perhaps also as the result of ‘large numbers’ as spoken of in Statistics, while Constantinianism periodically tends to become corrupt, for its Theology is delicately balanced, and permanently in a state of fluctuations between truth and hipocrisy, these contrasting traditions are embraced by those who truly or falsely respectively call for Reformation. or just limit themselves to criticise the opponents without offering any solution/plan based on a new synthesis of past suppressed knowledge.

Modern, materialistic, democratic ( worshipping a biased Freedom without Duties, rather than Justice ), badly educated masses lack the abstractedness required to understand these issues and the political sophistical puppets they elect, even less so.

Corruption within the Church of Rome or  other  Churches  and Religions, is generally the result of criminal diabolical infiltrations by elements who wish to use and control its power. These elements in turn influence the choice of leaders etc., triggering a vicious circle, requiring reform.

A theological form of corruption within  Christianity,   is also possible owing to the loss of the equilibrium between the understanding of Jesus having a Divine Nature as well as, homeostatically so, a Human one.

In other words by loosing the balance that the Formula of

Chalcedon warns about but cannot automatically grant without personal understanding and involvement of the reader between a Christology from Above and One from Below, confusion and

corruption is facilitated.

In general, a belief biased/unbalanced toward the Divinity of Christ, similarly to what a Platonic view of morality does, tends to

demoralise the will-to-act and acting itself, by placing more dependence on exterior and divine intervention than on the trained human will itself, directing human religious strength toward theoretical and interiorised acts of worship, like meditation, contemplation, renunciation, withdrawing from the world, dread for the human body’s appetites and of the material/physical world around us. This is the Augustinian view of Catholicism.
I  am  not   a   psychologist  or  a   psychiatrist,    and  cannot    medically/scientifically   explain  these  distortions   and   reversals   of    human   behaviour,    which  can  be  un-conscientious  
(  not  unconscious   per  se)  and    perhaps unaware,   perhaps   these  reversals   are    mental   reactions  intrinsic-to/built-in   the human  psyche,   aiming  at   equilibrium,    but   I   know  that   paradoxically,    behaviour   can    become   the   antithesis,  the  nemesys  of    what   is    declared/preached/desired   as   Belief,   behaviour  can   degenerate   and   result   into    the    reverse   of    what    utterances  and  declarations    state    to  be   the   desirable   norm.    

     St.  Paul    cries   out    as  a   warning   "...............I   do  not    do    what  I   believe    but    what   the   flesh  (  sarkis.......the    'body  of   sin '  prior  to conversion..........the  'body  of   death '   after    conversion   by   sola   fides )    tells     me   to    do.................Who   shall   deliver   us   from   this ? ".
Hence   the    need    for    equilibrium,   balance,    of   a   centre-point,   of   a    hinge---point,    of   a   swerpunkt    around     which    the     drive  of    a     German-Panzer-Regiment's     Blitzhrieg    rotated    in    its    strike   against    the  opponent,.......in   this  case.......SINFUL   BEHAVIOUR.

 A bias toward the Humanity of Christ can follow two diverging paths according to wether one considers Jesus’ humanity as the outward appearance of a puppet energised by the Word, or as a truly real perfect manhood, excluding any divine connection to the Word, that is, two separate wills.

These two biased views of the Humanity of Jesus can drive the human person into fatalisticArianism, very close to Mohammedanism, in which human will plays a very small role in a human life or into one of the various degrees of Gnosticism, in which human will, as the English monk Pelagius believed, is perfectly able to avoid sin, unassisted by Grace, however opposed by Augustine who believes in the necessity of Grace, therefore of a permanent open link between a human being and the Word of God.

A fully drawn out Gnosticism  also  believed  of   course,  in  the   Manichaen  way,   originating  from    ancient   Persia,    in  the existence of two separate and independent Agents, one for Goodness and one for Evil.

As a bottom line though, wether one believes or not in Satan the Devil as a fallen Angel, the fact is that a section of the human

Species has evolved into a collective, quasi-demonic, self-perpetuating,   self-generating even if not eternal or divine, Agency of Evil that is akin to Satan.

In view of the fact that this    Agency  of    Evil  has   grown   so powerful  and   ubiquitous,   that only God can annihilate and extirpate it, it follows that it has, in so far as humankind is concerned, the virtual connotations of a separate/quasi  independent Agent of Evil and that somehow,   a mild,    virtually Gnostic view of the world may not be entirely to be denied,   in   order  to  oppose   it   (  One   must  understand  one's   opponent   in   order   to  fight  it).

End of  a  purely   theological   Sub-Digression.

Rome, in its dread of a return to Arianism, had eventually favoured and encouraged the usurpation of power by the Carolingians from the Merovingians who had become influenced by the ancient diverging Christian traditions which seeked a better understanding of the humanity of Jesus, the possibility that he had married Mary Magdalene and procreated heirs to the Davidic Royal Line, aiming at a European Civilisation governed by the members of the Sang Real, joined under an Assembly or Council, under one single Head, say, an Emperor. Rome wanted instead a single Head consisting of a Pope.

The interferences of the Roman Church destabilised the normal course of this quest, and allowed the rise of a multitude of Monarchies led by these members, all competing among themselves,   encouraging  in  turn  local  languages  that  took  centuries   to   become    viable   and  cultural   differences  so   artificial  that these  are  now   being   abandoned  and  discontinued,    encouraging,   quasi-justifying   continous fratricidal  wars   culminating   in  WWI & II.

At the end of the Carolingian Dynasty, the Empire passed into the hands of a Saxon House when Otto I was crowned Holy Roman Emperor on 2nd February 962 AD.

Most of the early German Emperors had felt the need for a measure of independence from the Popes, however the Papacy in Rome aimed at the total control of the Emperors. The only alternative models of a relationship bewteen State and Church were Islam where the secular-arm ruled the religious one and Byzantium where the Emperor governed with a degree of freedom and independence often challenged by the Church.

Eventually the Papacy in Rome favoured the rise of the European Monarchies so as to be able to divide and rule, however weakening Europe and preparing the ground for the interminable wars including the religious ones and WWI and II. 
One must also note that the Church of Rome and  the  west  it   struggled   to  control  and  direct,   failed  to rescue   the   Orthodox Church from the onslaught of Islam.

It is my opinion that the founding of the Templar order by Sir Geoffrey de Bouillon under the inspiration of St. Bernard de Clairveaux had several motivations-: 

( I ) The reduction of the power of Islam in the Middle East. Islam   had   already   reached India   by   1100  AD. 
( II ) The attainment of access to the ruins of the Temple of Jerusalem so as to be able to dig and look for treasure and documents according to information left by the Prophet Ezekiel/Jeremiah in the care of the ancient holders of the tradition of the Guards of the Temple brought to Ireland    by  one of these Prophets   in  ca.  587 BC. 
( III ) The formation of a military force in Europe, independent from the rising Monarchies and the Holy Roman Emperors, nominally only subjected to the Pope, to be used for the purpose of curbing absolutism and corruption in the Christian world. The aims were not achieved or maintained for long since the founding of the Order in 1099 AD due to members of the nobility looking for a prestigious and secure organisation into which to retire.

The struggle against Islam soon tended to become within the Order of the Templars an exercise of diplomacy, as the result of the presence in the Order of the ancient Sumeric and Mesopotamic traditions which showed how scriptural history and knowledge owes its existence, development and evolution to all people and cultures of Mesopotamia, not just the Hebrews.

Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici.

“Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam ”.

(Incidentally, also the Motto of  the Ferrero of  Biella--Piedmont--Italy ).

Moreover, the emphasis was in this esoteric knowledge to give a pre-eminence to the Holy Spirit, rather than to the Divinity of the Father and/or the Son, in a quasi-monarchic ( Montanism ) and heretical way that could easily do away with the essential Trinitarian mediations and relations of the Father and the Son to and through the Holy Spirit.
I   do  not  mean/intend    in/by  these   comments  and  considerations  to  belittle   these   mediations   and  relations   but  only  to  suggest  that   to  us  the    worshippers  and  believers   these   should   be  a  private  matter  between  the  Persons  of  the   Holy  Trinity   not   externally  affecting   or   concerning  us,  certainly   not    justifying    us  in   our   murderous  reactions  in  our  divisions  and   religious  wars.  

However, in a way not any longer applicable to Christianity but that is still valid for Islam, there is still within the latter and  perhaps   even   Judaism, a    Theocratic obsession   that excludes the value of a dialogue that cannot be mutual. Islam,  or   at  least  an   aggressive   and  active  minority   within   it,  leading  it,   is still committed to the conquest and religious control of all who are non-Moslem.

The second aim was apparently achieved as all alleged texts, documents, the Sacred Ark, and treasure were excavated from under the foundations of the Temple of Jerusalem upon which the Knights had built their headquarters, and everything was successfully brought back to Europe, giving the Order great prestige and power.

As to the regulation/moderation of Monarchic power, this was carried out in England until ca. 1250 and I say this on the basis of what I found out about the Earls of Derby of the noble House of Ferrers who were Templars since the foundation of the Order, having founded a Cistercian Abbey/Monastery at Merevale in

Staffordshire, through the contributions of Robert Ferrers the 2nd Earl of Derby ( 1101-1163 ).

As an example of unavoidable failure in this respect was Italy where being a Templar Knight and carrying out regulatory functions was extremely difficult owing to the fragmentation of that Nation, that generated a great deal of chaos, illegalities and disorders, impossible to correct and control in the piece-meal-wise way the Templars acted. Moreover much of the disorder was caused by Papal Policies and political interferences.

Note-:The silver and black livery-tincfdtures   were later on adopted by the Teutonic Knights.

The first headquarters of the Knights Templar, Al Aqsa Mosque, on Jerusalem's Temple Mount. The Crusaders called it the Temple of Solomon, as it was built on top of the ruins of the original Temple, and it was from this location that the Knights took their name of Templar.

Here are some extracts from Wikipaedia showing how local and

The-Church-of-Rome’s forces would clash about religious issues-:

James I the Conqueror (Catalan: Jaume el Conqueridor, Aragonese: Chaime lo Conqueridor, Spanish: Jaime el Conquistador, Occitan: Jacme lo Conquistaire; 2 February 1208 – 27 July 1276) was the King of Aragon, Count of Barcelona, and Lord of Montpellier from 1213 to 1276.

James was born at Montpellier as the only son of Peter II and Mary, heiress of William VIII of Montpellier and Eudokia Komnene. As a child, James was a pawn in the power politics of Provence, where his father was engaged in struggles helping the Cathar heretics of Albi against the Albigensian Crusaders led by Simon IV de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, who were trying to exterminate them. Peter endeavoured to placate the northern crusaders by arranging a marriage between his son James and Simon's daughter. He entrusted the boy to be educated in Montfort's care in 1211, but was soon forced to take up arms against him, dying at the Battle of Muret on 12 September 1213. Montfort would willingly have used James as a means of extending his own power had not the Aragonese and Catalans appealed to Pope Innocent III, who insisted that Montfort surrender him. James was handed over, at Carcassonne, in May or June 1214, to the papal legate Peter of Benevento.

James was then sent to Monzón, where he was entrusted to the care of William of Montredon, the head of the Knights Templar in Spain and Provence; the regency meanwhile fell to his great uncle Sancho, Count of Roussillon, and his son, the king's cousin, Nuño. The kingdom was given over to confusion until, in 1217, the Templars and some of the more loyal nobles brought the young king to Zaragoza.[2]

Copied from NNDB-:

James I, the Conqueror, King of Aragon, son of Peter II, king of Aragon, and of Mary of Montpellier, whose mother was Eudoxia Comnena, daughter of the emperor Manuel I Comnenus, was born at Montpellier on the 2nd of February 1208. His father, a man of immoral life, was with difficulty persuaded to cohabit with his wife. He endeavored to repudiate her, and she fled to Rome, where she died in April 1213. Peter, whose possessions in Provence entangled him in the wars between the Albigenses and Simon of Montfort, endeavored to placate the northern crusaders by arranging a marriage between his son James and Simon's daughter. In 1211 the boy was entrusted to Montfort's care to be educated, but the aggressions of the crusaders on the princes of the south forced Peter to take up arms against them, and he was slain at Muret on the 12th of September 1213. Montfort would willingly have used James as a means of extending his own power. The Aragonese and Catalans, however, appealed to the pope, who forced Montfort to surrender him in May or June 1214. James was now entrusted to the care of Guillen de Monredon, the head of the Templars in Spain and Provence. The kingdom was given over to confusion until in 1216 the Templars and some of the more loyal nobles brought the young king to Saragossa.