Cracking the Da Vinci Code? – Not likely!Paul SmithCracking the Da Vinci Code by Simon Cox is a hoot – Cox merely invites more mystifications by repeating the (now long dead in France) Priory of Sion myths and presenting them as "mysteries" – and Cox should really replace the word mystery with myth within the context of The Da Vinci Code – because everything that Dan Brown has written about the Priory of Sion was based not on historical facts but rather on claims found in the Priory of Sion documents – all bogus works of historical fiction stemming from Plantard's fertile imagination (and what gave them a deeper ‘esoteric’ flavour was Philippe de Chérisey's input, who tried to decorate the fantasies in a surrealist fashion). What was the Priory of Sion?According to Simon Cox, the "existence of the Priory of Sion continues to be an elusive mystery, even today", and, "The trio (of Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln) never did ultimately discover what the real purpose of the Priory of Sion was." There is no "mystery" surrounding the Priory of Sion. It existed in three different guises during three different periods of time – in 1956 (when it was first formed, not during the Crusades), between 1961-1985, and between 1989-1993. Simon Cox has decided to omit altogether its existence during the years 1989-1993 – that its 1989-1993 existence was authentic cannot be doubted since proof exists in the form of letters written by Pierre Plantard himself, and documentation in the Bibliotheque Nationale verifies the material as originating from Pierre Plantard's home address. There is no mystery over what the aim of the Priory of Sion was in its 1961-1985 and 1989-1993 guises – there is a very clear statement of purpose – the restoration of the Merovingian Dynasty – this is overtly promoted in all of the Priory Documents from those periods of time – and Pierre Plantard claimed (since 1964) to be the direct lineal descendant of Dagobert II – and the whole purpose and aim of the Priory of Sion immediately collapses with this allegation simply because Plantard was a fraud who was really descended from a 16th century peasant who picked walnuts! The 1956 version of the Priory of Sion was something completely different to the other two versions that existed between 1961-1985 and 1989-1993. This was a real group of real people formed to devote themselves to opposing the planners of Annemasse Council and backing the opposition candidate at the local elections. There was nothing "mysterious" or "esoteric" about this version of the Priory of Sion which was a local government pressure group that supported the idea of Low-Cost Housing. This 1956 version terminated after October 1956, following Plantard getting into trouble with the Police. Cox alleged that Plantard "never actually confirmed or denied this theory" in relation to his being descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, when in actual fact Plantard wasted no time in denying it – first on a 1982 French Radio Interview and then in a 1983 article by Philippe de Chérisey entitled Jesus Christ, his wife and the Merovingians found here: Jesus Christ, his wife and the Merovingians Cox added that the Priory of Sion was "relaunched" on 27 December 2002 by Gino Sandri – without giving his readers the vital information that this fell like a lead balloon in France – because all interest in the Priory of Sion terminated in France during the mid-1980s. Nobody in France is taking any notice of Gino Sandri because nobody in France is interested in the Priory of Sion. Who was Pierre Plantard?Simon Cox has omitted quite a portion about Pierre Plantard’s life from his book – especially his 1937-1954 activities and his 1953 prison conviction for which, see: Pierre Plantard was a lifelong charlatan and fantasist who between 1937-1989 created several phantom associations and who also made bogus allegations that he had various liaisons with various prominent and famous people in order to attract attention to himself. The Dossiers SecretsSimon Cox rightly described the Dossiers Secrets as a collection of "newspaper clippings, assorted letters, genealogy charts, and a 'tableau'," – but failing to say that these things all represented (very poor) fictitious material supporting the claims of a charlatan. The Grand Masters List in the Dossiers Secrets was mainly derived from a French AMORC document compiled by Raymond Bernard. Names not found in the French AMORC document – like Jean Cocteau, for example – were added to the List version found in the Dossiers Secrets by Philippe de Chérisey (on account of his interest in surrealism). L’abbé Bérenger SaunièreSimon Cox seems to be totally ignorant about the real life of Bérenger Saunière, possibly because he hasn't read any of the reliable French books about the Rennes-le-Château story, and instead relies solely upon the unreliable accounts found in English Language books, most of which are hopeless (the recently published The Treasure of Rennes-le-Chateau: A Mystery Solved by Bill Putnam and John Edwin Wood, remedies this sad situation and is recommended reading). Simon Cox alleges that, "In 1891, inspired by Boudet's romantic tales of local history, Saunière raised the funds to carry out a modest restoration of his church" – which is simply untrue – Saunière began the restorations of his church in 1886 when he replaced the Main Church Altar and Stained-Glass Windows during that year. The allegation that Saunière "discovered parchments" whilst renovating his church is not based upon any solid historical evidence – this only first materialised during the mid-1950s following the opening of a Restaurant in the Villa Bethanie by Noel Corbu – who bought Saunière's old estate from Marie Dénarnaud in 1946. The "parchments discovery" story began as a publicity gimmick by Corbu to attract custom to his restaurant along with his allegation that "Saunière discovered a treasure". Likewise Simon Cox's other allegations concerning Saunière – his "journey to St Sulpice", his "visiting the Louvre", his "defacing inscriptions from gravestones", his "long walks in the countryside", etc, are equally fictitious accounts about the priest dating from only the mid-1950s onwards. None of these allegations are based on actual verifiable historical evidence. Cox claimed that after losing his priesthood, Saunière had "appealed directly to the Vatican, which overruled the suspension and reinstated him" – which again is simply untrue because Saunière never regained his priesthood – his lawyer, Canon Huguet, was still working on his case on the date of Saunière's death 22 January 1917 – and there is a letter from Canon Huguet proving this to be the case: Letter dated 22 January 1917 from Canon Huguet, Saunière’s lawyer Cox also added: "It is said that the priest who attended Saunière to hear his last confession refused to administer the rite of extreme unction and that Saunière died unshriven on January 22" – which is also untrue because we know this much: The Real Truth about Saunière's Last Rites Cox concluded about Saunière: "Speculation about what Saunière might have discovered to make him a wealthy man continues over 100 years later...." Simon Cox has evidently not read any of the essential French books on this subject matter – which produce the historical evidence about Saunière's activities and, crucially, documentation about the source of his wealth: Jean-Jacques Bedu: 'Rennes-le-Château - Autopsie d'un mythe' (1990) Saunière’s source of wealth as being generated from the selling of masses over a 20-year period wasn’t just something dreamed-up by his superiors at the Carcassonne Bishopric. The actions taken against Saunière that culminated in his suspension from priestly duties took place as a result of complaints made from numerous religious organisations and individual priests who had noticed what the priest of Rennes-le-Château had been up to – accepting more money than he was able to say masses for. Without these complaints, the Carcassonne Bishopric would have taken no action against Saunière. Cracking the Da Vinci Code by Simon Cox is only one example out of hundreds where verifiable historical facts become omitted for the sake of experiencing the fun in believing in mysteries and thrills. Belief in what creates fun and excitement overrides the acknowledgment of verifiable historical facts that tell a different story and expose charlatanism and mythmaking. priory-of-sion.com |