The Priory of Sion Hoax

[MasterDruid]

After reading Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood Holy Grail, I was partially convinced the Priory of Sion was the greatest secret Eurpean history had to tell. Turns out the best part of the story was finding it was all a hoax by one desperate man. Though it's a work of fiction, I wonder if Dan Brown knew about the debunking before writing Da Vinci Code. Not that it matters, he accomplished what he set out to do.

If you want a good read on the fake Priory of Sion you can visit ancientmonks.com and click on Priory of Sion.

[Reinaert]

Well... The link is here.

http://www.ancientmonks.com/mystical...the-holy-grail

Pierre Plantard was a fraud, but the priest, Beranger Sauniere also.
This priest was an impostor that used newspapers to advertise the doing of catholic masses for people that died. In that way he earned a lot of money for masses he never did. What to think about 40.000 masses in one year?

[sparkey]

Historical hoaxes and royal pretenders are an interest of mine, thanks for the link. Plantard's scheme was certainly one of the most elaborate, although it has also become one of the most thoroughly debunked, owing to the amount of possible things to debunk there were in his scheme. With all he borrowed, it was only a matter of time before others found what he had plagiarized.

My all-time favorite royal pretender: Perkin Warbeck. Compared to Plantard, his scheme was much more difficult to unravel... although, in addition to the relative simplicity of his scheme, that may also be a product of how much more private life was in Warbeck's time.

[Reinaert]

Well.. Never heard of a Perkin Warbeck before. It's very unlikely he had anything to do with the English throne. William of Normandy invaded England in 1066, but in fact he was a French descendant of the Vikings of Normandy.
The other point is that Dan Brown just wrote a good fiction book, based on some stories that can be read in The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail.

A British actor named Henry Lincoln stumbled upon Plantard’s book and created two documentaries that were aired on BBC. He then urged authors Michael Baigant and Richard Leigh to join him on an expedition to uncover the secret of Rennes-Le-Chateau.

Lincoln, Baigant and Leigh simply were goofed.
Well.. BBC.. Says it all...

They should rename it into British Propaganda Company.

[edao]

After reading Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood Holy Grail, I was partially convinced the Priory of Sion was the greatest secret Eurpean history had to tell. Turns out the best part of the story was finding it was all a hoax by one desperate man. Though it's a work of fiction, I wonder if Dan Brown knew about the debunking before writing Da Vinci Code. Not that it matters, he accomplished what he set out to do.

If you want a good read on the fake Priory of Sion you can visit ancientmonks.com and click on Priory of Sion.

I could only read half the Da Vinci Code, the dialogue I found to be incredibly forced as each character felt like their convo had been cut and pasted from a wiki pedia page. Not sure what all the fuss is about Dan Brown?

I think the biggest hoax was that the Da Vinci Code was a good book.

[Antigone]

Ha very good, I think the biggest hoax is that Dan Brown can write any book with any skill or imagination. I've tried two books of his and ended up throwing both in the rubbish before the half way mark. Can't believe anyone would take him seriously.

[Reinaert]

It's clear Dan Brown wrote fiction, but the books and the stories he based that fiction on, were portrayed as a serious theory. At least serious enough for some TV stations to make programs about.

[sparkey]

It's clear Dan Brown wrote fiction, but the books and the stories he based that fiction on, were portrayed as a serious theory. At least serious enough for some TV stations to make programs about.

That is, not very serious.

You're right though, he took a lot of his theory from The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, as OP mentioned, which read even more into the Priory of Sion hoax than there was to begin with.

[Melusine]

All of the books mentioned above and the "false genealogies" that they claim, WOULD NOT PASS "a" genetic test with the families they "supposedly" descend from (no match).

As a serious genealoglist (family), one could immediately see the HUGE GAPS, in the so-called genealogy chart of Pierre Plantard. (especially since on my direct paternal line one of his so-called ancestors is of my father's own paternal line in France ( a line which is well documented historically and legally and by relgious records (mostly Catholic, however some are Huguenot) and that I have personally researched for over 20 years).

By combining genealogy with genetics one can get a "clearer" picture of "who do we think we are".? Together both allow one to have an "eye opening experience" about ones ancestry. People lie, church records have lies in them, (known or unknown). DNA DOES NOT LIE.

Somehow people think that their "known" ancestry', on the y-dna line has never had a non-paternal event (interruption of direct biological male line) such as illegitimacy, known or unknown adoption, assumption of a surname, mother pregnant with child then married another male who on paper is claimed as his/her own, mother is/was married and became pregnant by "another male", (not her husband), change of name, to a variation of name that is different enough that the original surname is quickly lost in a generation or two or in the "mists" of time (such as the French Mainard/Mesnard to the english Maynard/Maynor) etc.

Melusine

[Reinaert]

That is, not very serious.

You're right though, he took a lot of his theory from The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, as OP mentioned, which read even more into the Priory of Sion hoax than there was to begin with.

Well.. Maybe American TV stations sell bullshit, but European TV stations don't have that habit. But it is very odd to learn BBC journalists completely were fooled and even wrote a book about the subject of the Holy Grail.

[hope]

Ha very good, I think the biggest hoax is that Dan Brown can write any book with any skill or imagination. I've tried two books of his and ended up throwing both in the rubbish before the half way mark. Can't believe anyone would take him seriously.

Yet the films made from both books were pretty good, I thought. :)

[LeBrok]

I agree, treating them as fictional movies they were excellent.