This is the account of arch-sceptic Paul Smith [not his real name, another hiding behind a facade1] regarding how he got in to the Rennes-le-Chateau 'mystery'. It is from his very old website, back in 2006, documented via the Way Back Machine [described as .... a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts ........ we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, people with print disabilities, and the general public....archiving the Internet itself, a medium that was just beginning to grow in use].
Background Information
I first came across the subject matter of Rennes-le-Château in 1979, after watching one of Henry Lincoln’s documentaries. It was also during the late 1970s that I developed an interest in researching Christian origins, which touched upon matters like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Texts and the Gnostics, the latter sect being similar to the mediaeval dualist sect the Cathars, featured on Lincoln’s documentary – which was the main reason behind my watching it. I had to confine myself entirely upon English material relating to the subject matter of Rennes-le-Château between 1979-1982, believing this to be wholly trustworthy and totally devoid of any mistakes relating to Bérenger Saunière and to Pierre Plantard. However, when ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ was published in 1982 I experienced disappointment: I immediately recognised that the so-called researches on the New Testament were very much a 'rush job' and that the authors did not even know some of the basic facts relating to Christianity2 (all of this was documented by the critics in 1982 at the time of its publication, and by 'critics' I am not just referring here to the academic establishment).
During the course of my researches into Rennes-le-Château between 1979-1982 I met the acquaintance of two supporters of Henry Lincoln, one of whom suggested that it would be a good idea to meet Jean-Luc Chaumeil3, a French researcher who was considered to be a spokesman of Pierre Plantard4. It seemed like a good idea after reading ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ – "was this what the Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Château was really all about?" I kept asking myself…I first met Jean-Luc Chaumeil in Paris in September 1982 – and the meeting was an eye-opener! There he showed me a lot of the evidence demonstrating that the Priory of Sion was a hoax, that the parchments as allegedly discovered by Saunière were really Philippe de Chèrisey fakes5, and that Plantard was an outright charlatan6. Not only this, but Chaumeil had actually informed Henry Lincoln about all of this prior to the publication of ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’7. Jean-Luc Chaumeil was a very disappointed man.
My French contact had become established8 - I soon got to know about the various French books on this subject-matter by authors like René Descadeillas and Jacques Rivière: all of which were mainly based on primary source material - I spotted that these authors let the facts speak for themselves and that theories were minimal in their scheme of things. I was highly impressed by this approach. The French material gives a totally different account of the activities of Bérenger Saunière, and is far more critical of the part played by Pierre Plantard and his Priory of Sion9.
Consequently, I decided to tabulate and to collate all the facts together to some of the subject matters found in 'The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail'10 - favourites that included Rennes-le-Château, the Priory of Sion, Christianity, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Freemasonry. I realised that the best way of doing this was by way of Chronological framework, because by doing so the evolution and development of the various subject matters was also produced in the process. So the idea behind my chronologies was born - they are shorthand information databases based upon facts devoid of theories - just like the best French books on Rennes-le-Château that most of the English-speaking world is not aware of.
Paul Smith.
1] Smith claims he changed his real name by deed poll. So therefore he isn't hiding behind a facade. But his real name is still not known, so Paul Smith is still hiding behind a facade. Nobody, to my knowledge, actually knows the real identity of this person. My favourite singer is Bob Dylan but we all know his original name is Robert Zimmerman. It's okay to use nicknames or pseudonyms but to use a facade to hide your identity is deceitful. Therefore suspicious. I am always suspicious of people who act in this way to hide their real identity.
2] No one knows what the basic facts of Christianity are! It is all supposition. Church history by contrast is known from the basics of early Church history promulgated by its historians [i.e late Roman history].
3] I wonder who the two supporters of Henry Lincoln were? Pity he does not name them. Presumably it must be Baigent and Leigh, otherwise who would be supporting Lincoln at the time?
4] Who ever said Chaumeil was a spokesperson for Plantard? I think you will find Chaumeil self appointed himself to that position. Is he a spokesperson in the same way Gino Sandri claims? Did Plantard ever make an announcement to any interested parties about who could speak on his behalf? Did he anywhere name Chaumeil or Sandri? No he did not. Plantard seems to have fed information, piecemeal to many different individuals. No one was his equal or accomplice, accept perhaps Cherisey.
5] And he doesn't say what that evidence was!
6] He probably means the police accounts about Plantard complied by German authorities or those working on behalf of German authorities.
7] Henry Lincoln had a very low opinion of Jean-Luc Chaumeil - he wrote; One must certainly question his reliability! I also know firsthand from Vazart that this was true.
8] The above mentioned Chaumeil.
9] What is meant here presumably is the idea that Lincoln et al later promoted in Holy Blood, Holy Grail. But of course we already know that Plantard distanced himself from the astonishing idea put forward in this book, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children. The bloodline later aligned with the Merovingians and that Plantard was a descendant of Christ. Being a descendant of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene must have been VERY alarming to Plantard and he must have been extremely bemused at how Lincoln et al had turned the Sauniere Affair into a bloodline descended from Christ via the Merovingians. This red herring led all those associated with Plantard to ridicule him [Chérisey in various tracts, Rouelle apparently with de Sède via La Race Fabuleuse, a book about the Merovingians being descended from extra-terrestrials!, Chaumeil etc] - even though the invention of a Christ bloodline was made by Lincoln et al and NOT Plantard! How these authors got to THAT idea from the Priory texts is nothing to do with Plantard, when the most you could see is that Plantard claimed some kind of descendancy from Dagobert II via a Visigothic heritage? The question is what for?
10] As I said above, Smith bases all his objections to the Priory of Sion [whatever it is or was] and Plantard based on the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail originally. As for the evidence he bleats on about from Chaumeil and any of his other so called 'contacts' - he has no idea what their biases are, or how legitimate the 'evidence' is.