The Sion Revelation – The Opinions Do Not Fit The Facts

The Sion Revelation –

The Opinions Do Not Fit The Facts

Paul Smith

The Sion Revelation by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince can more properly be called The Sion Mystification because the two authors are well-known mystery-buffs who love to manufacture far-fetched alternative versions of history, and have just produced another example in this, their latest book. In a nutshell, their argument is that Pierre Plantard could not be trusted, he was merely chosen to play the role of front man or figurehead for the Priory of Sion – an organisation that just happened to be a hoax and a cover for an ancient tradition – previously existing under the guise of the Rectified Scottish Rite, Martinism, Beneficient Knights of the Holy City, and even in the ultra-right wing 1930s French terrorist group, the Cagoule – all linked together by one common factor – synarchy – largely responsible for "the drive to forge the United States of Europe". The authors suggest that the origin for the idea of European political Unity came from Saint-Yves d’Alveydre – despite the fact that d’Alveydre never wrote about politics in his entire life. Also, the fact that synarchy existed more in the form of speculative theory than in actual reality and in different forms in different contexts is not explained to the reader, either.

Picknett and Prince claim that when the Priory of Sion was first formed in 1956 it was a "front for groups plotting Charles de Gaulle’s return to power" (and containing "coded messages") – or at least that’s what they would have us believe – without citing relevant passages from the 1956 issues of Circuit showing that the Priory of Sion was devoted to the backing of Monsieur Maitret the leader of the opposition group on the Annemasse town council in 1956 (as well as being the President of the Large Families Association). Not a single reference to this fact is made in their enormous 530-page book.

Picknett and Prince state that "it is emphatically not our job to defend Plantard" because "he was a downright ‘dodgy’ character" and "everything he said was a lie or half-truth" which does not ring true – the authors give Plantard the benefit of the doubt when he claimed he "knew" Georges Monti; that he was involved in "gold transfers to Switzerland"; and that his father was an "aristocrat" (based on an amendment to a Birth Certificate dating from 1972!) – all of which are classic ludicrous Plantard claims.

Picknett and Prince also chose to believe and to take seriously that important people were linked to Plantard’s 1940s wartime activities relating to the Alpha Galates – that Louis Le Fur, Camille Savoire, and Robert Amadou actually knew and met Pierre Plantard (Amadou did not claim he was a member of the Alpha Galates as reported by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh); and that even Hans Adolf von Moltke was a member of the Alpha Galates . Yet the authors continuously demonstrate that they are not in possession of all the known facts – take for example Maurice Lecomte-Moncharville (1864-1943) – they regard "his" articles in Vaincre with some importance – yet they could not have been written by Moncharville at all – firstly because he was a specialist dealing in International Law who never wrote about esoteric matters – and secondly because he wasn’t even living in France at the time when the various articles appeared that were attributed to him in the issues of Vaincre. Nor was Moncharville ever a "Count" – the word "Lecomte" was part of his surname.

The reason why Hans Adolf von Moltke was chosen by Plantard to be a "member of the Alpha Galates" was not because of his name but because of his status – German ambassador to Spain: and Plantard naturally supported the side of General Franco in the Spanish Civil War. Quoting from Vaincre Number 4, "… from the very first day of the Spanish Civil War our watchword was to support nationalism and to join forces with Franco". This was just another example of Pierre Plantard’s right-wing nature. Whoever would have been German ambassador to Spain at the time would automatically also have been a "member of the Alpha Galates" – it just happened to be Hans Adolf von Moltke.

The point was made in the Police Report on Pierre Plantard dated 8 February 1941: "In fact Plantard, who boasts of having links with numerous politicians, seems to be one of those dotty, pretentious young men who run more or less fictitious groups in an effort to look important and who are taking advantage of the present trend towards taking a greater interest in young people in order to attract the Government's attention." – a passage from File Ga P7 existing in the Paris Prefecture of Police that Picknett and Prince themselves actually quote but decided to ignore the relevance of.

Picknett and Prince claim that Les Dossiers Secrets d’Henri Lobineau was not a part of Pierre Plantard’s creations – an astonishing claim since the document contains additional material and arguments designed to supplement that already found in earlier Priory Documents – representing a natural progression in the Plantard/de Chèrisey mythmaking process. For example, Les Dossiers Secrets contains genealogies produced by the very same stencil-kit that produced the genealogies found in earlier documents, which actually bear Pierre Plantard’s signature.

The explanation for the creation of the Priory of Sion involving the Merovingians, the Crusades, Godfrey de Bouillon, dates from the early 1960s when Pierre Plantard first met Gérard de Sède and began collaborating with him on books – the whole genesis of the false Priory of Sion pedigree began as a money-making scheme – that Plantard failed to capitalise because Gérard de Sède refused to share the book royalties! Because Plantard failed to make any money does not preclude that it all started as a money-making scheme in the first place. Naturally, Picknett and Prince do not go into any great detail relating to the legal case involving Pierre Plantard and Gérard de Sède in relation to book royalties. Both Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey needed money during the early 1960s and writing books about Rennes-le-Château and devising the myth of the Priory of Sion was their strategy in obtaining that money.

The French researcher Jean-Luc Chaumeil possesses correspondence dating from the 1960s that Pierre Plantard, Philippe de Chèrisey and Gérard de Sède wrote to each other (including the original envelopes) – providing details of their background activities, schemes and plans demonstrating what was happening at the time between them involving Rennes-le-Château and the Priory of Sion myth. These letters prove that these were the only individuals involved and that there was no "Grand Esoteric Masterplan" involving "Higher Authorities" whereby Plantard served only as a figurehead. Picknett and Prince’s Sion Revelation is a complete mistake.

Picknett and Prince – Lack of Integrity

Some of the content in The Sion Revelation calls into question the integrity of the two authors. For example, they give thanks to Geoffrey Basil Smith for providing them with a letter that he had received from Philippe de Chèrisey, yet it was only on 17 November 2005 that we received an e-mail from Geoffrey Basil Smith asking, "please send copies of my old de cherisey letters to me ... mine have disappeared mysteriously". There is no reference to "theft" here like Picknett and Prince have wrongly imagined – Geoffrey Basil Smith told to Paul Smith during the late 1980s that he destroyed his Priory of Sion archive.

Another example is their statement that they had "spent considerable time, particularly in the mid-‘90s, mixing with many other researchers and enthusiasts, in both the United Kingdom and France, of all shades of opinion, including sceptics and Plantard opponents" – which could not have been that comprehensive – since they did not contact Paul Smith (and he is only mentioned in their book several times), nor did they contact Jean-Luc Chaumeil (who is also mentioned in their book several times), nor did they contact Jean-Jacques Bedu (who isn’t even mentioned in their book) – and they certainly did not contact Judge Thierry Jean Pierre – which is why they do not know anything about the 1993 incident involving him and Pierre Plantard.

We can show the 1960s correspondence between Pierre Plantard, Philippe de Chèrisey and Gérard de Sède; we can show the proof that Saunière obtained his wealth from the selling of masses; we can suggest to Picknett and Prince to contact Judge Thierry Jean-Pierre – but the resilient and versatile nature of the mystery-buff cannot be conquered – if there’s a mystery to be entertained than nothing can stop the process once it has started.

In The Sion Revelation, Picknett and Prince have absorbed all the damning negative evidence about Pierre Plantard only to make up excuses to produce a far-fetched version of alternative history to try and make the subject matter sound interesting. The authors promote themselves as ‘historical researchers engaging in a detective story’ – when in fact, there is no substantial difference between their ‘Giovanni’ (their ‘source’ on the Priory of Sion) and the ‘Michael’ of Timothy Wallace Murphy (the source relating to the Rex Deus claims). Both Parties are equally culpable in their respective reasoning and therefore both Parties are equally guilty of producing pseudo-history.