The Larmenius Charter or Carta Transmissionis (“Charter of Transmission”) is a manuscript purportedly created by Johannes Marcus Larmenius (Fr.: Jean-Marc Larmenius) in February 1324, giving in Latin a list of 22 successive Grand Masters of the Knights Templar after Jacques de Molay, ending in 1804, the name of Bernard-Raymond Fabré-Palaprat appearing last on the list (who revealed the existence of the Charter in 1804). The document is written in a supposed devised ancient Knights Templar Codex. Actually in Freemason custody, the document is kept at the Mark Masons Hall in London. Based on analysis of the deciphered code as well as of the circumstances of the finding of the charter, most researchers have concluded that it is a forgery.

In the document, Larmenius, then a very aged man in his 70’s, states that the Grand Mastership of the Knights Templar Order was verbally transmitted to him ten years earlier (March, 1314) by the imprisoned Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar. Larmenius was a Palestinian-born Christian who became a member of The Order of the Temple during the waning years of the Crusades. He was later the Templar Preceptor on the island domain of Cyprus after the Templar exodus from the mainland of the Holy Land to Cyprus after the fall of Acre in 1295. In this position, Larmenius was left in charge as Templar Seneschal (second highest rank in the Order) of the large remaining “exited” Templar forces in the Mediterranean in 1305 when de Molay was tricked into coming to Paris for meetings with Philip IV of France and the Pope Clement V.

In the document, Larmenius states he has become too aged to continue with the rigorous requirements of the Office of Grand Master, and “transfers” his Grand Mastership of the Templar Order to Franciscus Theobaldus, the Prior of the Templar Priory still remaining at Alexandria, Egypt. With this declarative Charter, Larmenius protects the Order for perpetuity by continuing the legitimate line of Grand Masters of the Templar Order, which continues the “Second Phase” of the Order through the “Dark Period” through to its semi-private unveiling at the Convent General of the Order at Versailles in 1705 by Philippe, Duke of Orléans, elected Grand Master of the Templar Order, and later also Regent of France.

The Charter has long been suspected to be a forgery – it was suggested it was the work of a Jesuit named Father Bonani, who assisted Philippe II, Duke of Orléans in 1705 to fabricate the document, to re-establish the ‘Societé d’Aloyau’, who claimed to be a continuation of the Knights Templar, and also an attempt to gain recognition with the Order of Christ in Portugal. This Order was dissolved in 1792 during the French Revolution by the death of its Grand Master, the Duke Timoléon de Cossé Brissac, massacred at Versailles. An item of his furniture was bought by Brother Ledru, the son of Cossé Brissac’s physician, whereupon he discovered the Charter of Larmenius hidden inside it, and showed it to Fabré-Palaprat in 1804. Peter Partner believes the document was fabricated by Ledru.

What is most important in my opinion is that while the document may not be hundreds of years old, it does not mean that it is not correct in its’ assertion of the verbal passage of the order leadership as was probably necessary when the order was being hunted and persecuted for so many decades. It is in my opinion quite possible that over the years eventually the leadership was written down time and time again as a manual record keeping system. Thus the age of the exact document is immaterial to me. It is whether or not you believe that creating a method of transferring the orders leadership was probable in the hours and thereafter when Jacques de Molay traveled to meet with the French King Phillip IV? I certainly believe that the most powerful military and commerce organization on the planet had ample spies and knew that this meeting might become quite hostile. Therefore, as I have always stated I think it is very likely that Jacques de Molay had a plan for succession and even a worst case plan for disbursement of the order until this matter could be settled. Thus, I believe the probability of the oral transfer is quite believable, especially given the known connection Father Larmenius had to the order at the time. Furthermore, records during the inquisition were virtually wiped out by the church and those harboring such records would do so at their own peril. Therefore, I believe oral transmission was probably the safest method for sometime after 1314.

While the charter actually is written in some code, a number of researchers have claimed that the codex, once deciphered, appears to be a more modern, scholarly Latin, and not ecclesiastical Latin used during the period of its supposed origin. Again, in my opinion this does not invalidate the oral transmission theory. It would make sense that it would be recorded in a modern code each time as language changes over time and latin was still very difficult for the masses and even the most learned people to read and comprehend. The objection of the code was to confuse those that might read it not try to be some historical document. Thus, again in my opinion this does not necessarily invalidate the Larmenius Charter as a fraud or forgery, just a copy and record of the actual history of the leadership of the order post 1314.

Now we come to the modern person that is linked to the modern order, Fabré-Palaprat. He was a product of the Age of Enlightenment, with its humanitarian and humanistic ideals. The concepts of “Templar” and “Templarity” became for him a synonym of help and protection, decency, dedication and chivalrous behavior. He based his new Order of the Temple on these ideals. For these reasons, in the 19th century the Order counted among its members very prominent people and protectors in “alto loco.” Given that the Order developed during the height of the Romantic period, the name of the Templars became associated also with the romantic mystical world in which the legends of the lost treasure of the Templars, the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Shroud, the Holy Grail and the Rosslyn legends played a particularly prominent role. Of course during the French period where Napoleon created and forged a modern France by overthrowing the French Monarchs and creating the Napoleonic order, he saw the recognition of the newly formed order as an opportunity to once again do something that was surely aimed at discrediting the Monarchs for their vicious actions against the Knights Templars centuries earlier. In addition, this was an age of romanticism and people wanted to believe in the concepts of chivalry. So Napoleon gave credence to the charter and the order by recognizing the restoration of the order in 1804.

Here are the alleged names of the Grand Masters on the Charter… now do remember I am not claiming that these are accurate and I believe it was not always recorded by the most learned of folks, so the actual titles and such could be very inaccurate. In fact, since I believe it was largely an oral transmission, some of these names might be completely wrong or partially wrong based on the validity and memory of the persons each time transferring the information… just as we have proven in a room through a secret being passed by whisper the last verbal transfer can be quite different from the first verbal communication given at the beginning of the line, so could this transmission be a victim of such miscommunications. That does not mean the transfers did not occur. Here is the highly debated list for your own review:

LIST OF GRAND MASTERS OF KNIGHTS TEMPLARS, 1313 to 1873.

“(From Mackey’s Lexicon of Freemasonry.)

John Mark Larmenius 1313 Thomas Theobald Alexandrinus; otherwise Francis Thomas Theobald 1324 Arnold de Braque 1340 John de Claremont 1349 Bertrand du Guesclin 1357 John Arminiacus 1381 Bernard Arminiacus 1392 John Arminiacus 1419 John de Croy 1451 Bernard Imbault 1472 Robert Lenoncourt 1478 Galeatius de Salazar 1497 Philip Chabot 1516 Gaspard de Galtiaco Tavanensis 1544 Henry de Montmorency 1574 Charles de Valois 1615 James Ruxellius de Granceio 1651 James Henry, Duc de Duras 1681 Philip, Duke of Orleans 1705 Louis Augustus Bourbon 1724 Louis Henry Bourbon Conde 1737 Louis Francis Bourbon Conty 1741 Louis Hercules Timoleon, Due de Cosse Brissac. 1776 Claude M. R. Chevillon 1792 Bernard Raymund Fabre Palaprat 1804 Sir William Sidney Smith

Now, we come to the age where the order was reborn under the keen statesmanship of some French insiders in the Napoleon inner circle.

Later Napoleon the III, gave the order even wider recognition. But with the death of Napoleon III the Order lost its strongest protector. Compounded with various wars that preempted any attempt of cohesion in the International Order of the Temple, the Templar movement disaggregated. Even today, there are dozens of groups that carry in some form the name of the Templars. The direct descendants of Fabré-Palaprat’s Templars are, however, those Templars who have carried the name of Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani (where “Supremus” is sometimes translated imprecisely as “Sovereign”) since 1932. But even this group has been divided in at least three distinct and often rivalling factions.

In 1995, the majority of OSMTH Templars (mostly grouped in the Grand Priories of Austria, France, Italy, Finland, England & Wales, Scotland, NATO and the USA) assembled in the Austrian town of Salzburg and democratically adopted several resolutions to restructure and modernize the Order. One of the landmark decisions was to withdraw recognition from the Regent of the Order, Fernando de Sousa Fontes, because of mismanagement and irregular conduct. (Those few who refused to abide by the democratic decision are presently known as OSMTH-Regency.) The present OSMTH is therefore the largest and best organized Templar group to date. It is an apolitical, not-for-profit organization registered in Geneva, Switzerland, under Federal Registry number CH-660.197299-4.

The virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are the guiding lights of the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, whose members wish to SERVE, just as the original knights had served. The motto of the Order, “Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo ad gloriam” is from Psalm 115 verse 1 – “Not for us, Lord, not for us, but to Thy name give glory.”

Today the Order is a secular-military order of chivalry – a Knighthood which is intended for accomplished Christian military and civilian men (Knights) and women (Dames), who have demonstrated that they possess high ethical and moral principles and who wish to carry on the traditions of the Temple.

As an example of an OSMTH grand priory, the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, incorporated in the United States, is autonomous and independent. It recognizes the Constitution and statutes of the United States as sovereign and temporally supreme public law. The Order, in an age of materialism and secular humanism, seeks, by reconstituting an ancient chivalric order, to adopt an organization of proven effectiveness in capturing the allegiance and spirit of dedicated leaders, and to show that spiritual idealism is most certainly relevant and not inconsistent with a sensibility for tradition, nor inconsistent with patriotism or civic duty.

The word, not the sword, is the weapon of modern Templars. We use it to serve peace, to help the oppressed, to assist Brothers and Sisters, to promote education, and to promote and propagate those values that represent the best of the christian, humanistic and chivalrous traditions. But of course, action must follow smart words… Those of us Knights today each decide what is our particular focus and passion for creating a legacy of chivalry, first within our own family and then outwards towards the world.