Holy Blood, Holy Grail (30 page)

Perhaps the most interesting information in the statutes is that since

- 200 -

1956 the Prieure de Sion would seem to have expanded its membership almost fivefold. According to a page reproduced in the Dossiers secrets, printed sometime before 1956, Sion had a total of 1,093 members ranked in seven grades. The structure was traditionally pyramidal. At the top was the Grand Master, or “Nautonnier’.

There were three in the grade below him (“Prince Noachite de Notre Dame’), nine in the grade below that (“Croise de Saint-Jean’). Each grade from here downwards was three times as large as the grade before it 27, 81, 243, 729. The three highest grades the Grand Master and his twelve immediate subordinates were said to constitute the thirteen

“Rose-Croix’. The number would also, of course, correspond to anything from a satanic coven to Jesus and his twelve disciples.

According to the post-1956 statutes, Sion had a total membership of 9,841, ranked not in seven grades but in nine. The structure seems to have remained essentially the same, although it was clarified, and two new grades had been introduced at the bottom of the hierarchy thus further insulating the leadership behind a larger network of novices.

The Grand

Master still retained the title of “Nautonnier’. The three “Princes Noachites de Notre Dame’ were simply called “Seneschals’. The nine “Croises de Saint-Jean’ were called “Constables’. The organisation of the Order, in the portentously enigmatic jargon of the statutes, was as follows:

The general assembly is composed of all members of the association. It consists of 729

provinces, 27 command eries and an Arch designated “Kyria’.

Each of the command eries as well as the Arch, must consist of forty members, each province of thirteen members.

The members are divided into two effective groups:

a) The Legion, charged with the apostolate. b) The Phalange, guardian of the Tradition.

The members compose a hierarchy of nine grades.

The hierarchy of nine grades consists of:

- 201 -

a) in the 729 provinces 1) Novices: 6561 members 2) Croises: 2187

members b) in the 27 command eries 3) Preux: 729 members 4) Ecuyers: 243 members 5) Chevaliers: 81 members 6) Commandeurs: 27 members c) in the Arch

“Kyria’: 7) Connetables: 9 members 8) Senechaux: 3 members 9) Nautonnier: 1 member 2

Apparently for official bureaucratic and legal purposes, four individuals were listed as comprising “The Council’. Three of the names were unfamiliar to us and, quite possibly, pseudonyms Pierre Bonhomme, born December 7th, 1934, President; Jean Delaval, born March 7th, 1931, Vice-President; Pierre

Defagot, born December 11th, 1928, Treasurer. One name, however, we had encountered before Pierre Plantard, born March 18th, 1920, Secretary-General. According to the research of another writer, M.

Plantard’s official title was Secretary General of the Department of Documentation which implies, of course, that there are other departments as well.

Alain Poher

By the early 1970s the Prieure de Sion had become a modest cause celebre among certain people in France. There were a number of magazine articles and some newspaper coverage. On February 13th, 1973, the Midi Libre published a lengthy feature on Sion, Sauniere and the mystery of Rennes-leChateau. This feature specifically linked Sion with a possible survival of the Merovingian bloodline into the twentieth century. It also suggested that the Merovingian descendants included a ‘true pretender to the throne of France’, whom it identified as M. Alain Poher.3

While not especially well known in Britain or the United States Alain Poher was (and still is) a household name in France. During the Second

- 202 -

World War he won the Resistance Medal and the Croix de Guerre.

Following the resignation of de

Gaulle, he was Provisional President of France from April 28th to June 19th, 1969. He occupied the same position on the death of Georges Pompidou, from

April 2nd to May 27th. 1974. In 1973, when the feature in the Midi Libre appeared, M.

Poher was President of the French Senate.

As far as we know, M. Poher never commented, one way or the other, on his alleged connections with the Prieure de Sion and/or the Merovingian bloodline. In the genealogies of the “Prieure documents’, however, there is mention of Arnaud, Count of Poher, who, sometime between 894 and 896, intermarried with the Plantard family the direct, descendants supposedly of Dagobert II. Arnaud de Poher’s grandson, Alain, became duke of Brittany in 937. Whether or not M. Poher acknowledges Sion, it would thus seem clear that Sion acknowledges him as being, at the very least, of Merovingian descent.

The Lost King

In the meantime, while we pursued our research and the French media accorded periodic flurries of attention to the whole affair, new

“Prieure documents’ continued to appear. As before, some appeared in book form, others as privately printed pamphlets or articles deposited in the Bibliotheque

Nationale. If anything, they only compounded the mystification.

Someone was obviously producing this material, but their real objective remained unclear. At times we nearly dismissed the whole affair as an elaborate joke, a hoax of extravagant proportions. If this were true, however, it was a hoax that certain people seemed to have been sustaining for centuries and if one invests so much time, energy and resources in a hoax, can it really be called a hoax at all? In fact the interlocking skeins and the overall fabric of the “Prieure documents’ were less a joke than a work of art a display of ingenuity, suspense, brilliance, intricacy, historical knowledge and architectonic complexity worthy of, say, James Joyce. And while Finnegans Wake may be regarded as a joke of sorts, there is no question that its

- 203 -

creator took it very seriously indeed. It is important to note that the “Prieure documents’ did not constitute a conventional ‘bandwagon’ -

a lucrative fashion which burgeoned into a profitable industry, spawning sequels, ‘prequels’ and assorted other derivatives. They could not be compared, for example, to von Daniken’s

Chariots of the Gods, the sundry accounts of the Bermuda Triangle or the works of Carlos Castaneda. Whatever the motivation behind the

“Prieure documents’, it was clearly not financial gain. Indeed, money seemed to be only an incidental factor, if a factor at all. Although they would have proved extremely lucrative in book form, the most important “Prieure documents’ were not published as such. Despite their commercial potential, they were confined to private printings, limited editions and discreet deposition at the Bibliotheque Nationale

-where, for that matter, they were not even always available. And the information that did appear in conventional book form was not haphazard or arbitrary and for the most part it was not the work of independent researchers.

Most of it seemed to issue from a single source. Most of it was based on the testimony of very specific informants, who measured out precise quantities of new information as if with an eyedropper and according to some prearranged plan.

Each new fragment of information added at least one modification, one further piece to the overall jigsaw. Many of these fragments were released under different names. A superficial impression was thus conveyed of an array of separate writers, each of whom confirmed and imparted credibility to the others.

There appeared to us only one plausible motivation for such a procedure to attract public attention to certain matters, to establish credibility, to engender interest, to create a psychological climate or atmosphere that kept people waiting ~with hated breath for new revelations. In short, the “Prieure documents’ seemed specifically calculated to ‘pave the way’ for some astonishing disclosure. Whatever this disclosure might eventually prove to be, it apparently dictated a prolonged process of ‘softening up’ of preparing people. And whatever this disclosure might eventually prove to be, it somehow involved the Merovingian dynasty, the perpetuation of that dynasty’s bloodline to

- 204 -

the present day and a clandestine kingship. Thus, in a magazine article purportedly written by a member of the Prieure de Sion, we found the following statement, “Without the Merovingians, the Prieure de Sion would not exist, and without the

Prieure de Sion, the Merovingian dynasty would be extinct.” The relationship between the Order and the bloodline is partly clarified, partly further confused, by the following elaboration:

The King is, shepherd and pastor at the same time. Sometimes he dispatches some brilliant ambassador to his vassal in power, his factotum, one who has the felicity of being subject to death. Thus Rene d’Anjou, Connetable de

Bourbon, Nicolas Fouquet ... and numerous others for whom astonishing success is followed by inexplicable disgrace for these emissaries are both terrible and vulnerable. Custodians of a secret, one can only exalt them or destroy them. Thus people like Gilles de Rais, Leonardo da Vinci, Joseph

Balsamo, the dukes of Nevers and Gonzaga, whose wake is attended by a perfume of magic in which sulphur is mingled with incense the perfume of the Magdalene.

If King Charles VII, on the entrance of Jeanne d’Arc into the great hall of his castle at Chinon, hid himself among the throng of his courtiers, it was not for the sake of a frivolous joke where was the humour in it? but because he already knew of whom she was the ambassadress. And that, before her, he was scarcely more than one courtier among the others. The secret she delivered to him in private was contained in these words:

“Gentle lord, I come on behalf of the King. ‘4

The implications of this passage are provocative and intriguing. One is that the King the

“Lost King’, presumably of the Merovingian bloodline continues in effect to rule, simply by virtue of who he is. Another, and perhaps even more startling, implication is that temporal sovereigns are aware of his existence, acknowledge him, respect him and fear him. A third implication is that the Grand Master of the Prieure de Sion, or some other member of the Order, acts as ambassador between the “Lost King’ and his temporal deputies or surrogates.

- 205 -

And such ambassadors, it would seem, are deemed expendable.

Curious Pamphlets in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris

In 1966 a curious exchange of letters occurred concerning the death of Leo

Schidlof the man who, under the pseudonym of Henri Lobineau, was at that time alleged to have composed the genealogies in some of the

“Prieure documents’. The first letter, which appeared in the Catholic Weekly of

Geneva, is dated October 22nd, 1966. It is signed by one Lionel Burrus, who claims to speak on behalf of an organisation called Swiss Christian Youth.

M. Burrus announces that Leo Schidlof, alias Henri Lobineau, died in Vienna the week before, on October 17th. He then defends the deceased against a slanderous attack which, he claims, appeared in a recent Roman Catholic bulletin. M. Burrus registers his indignation at this attack. In his eulogy on Schidlof he declares that the latter, under the name of Lobineau, compiled, in 1956, ‘a remarkable study.. . on the genealogy of the

Merovingian kings and the affair of Rennes-leChateau’.

Rome, M. Burrus asserts, did not dare asperse Schidlof when he was alive, even though it had a comprehensive dossier on the man and his activities.

But even now, despite his death, Merovingian interests continue to be furthered. To support this contention, M. Burrus seems to wax more than a little preposterous. He cites what, in 1966, was the emblem of Antar, one of France’s leading petrol companies. This emblem is said to embody a

Merovingian device and depict, albeit in cartoon fashion, a Merovingian king. And this emblem, according to M. Burrus, proves that information and propaganda on behalf of the Merovingians is being effectively disseminated; and even the French clergy, he adds with imperfect relevance, do not always jump at the behest of the Vatican. As for Leo Schidlof, M. Burrus concludes (with echoes of Freemasonry and Cathar thought), “For all those who knew

Henri Lobineau, who was a great voyager and a great seeker, a loyal and good man, he remains in our hearts as the symbol of a “maitre parfait”,

- 206 -

whom one respects and venerates. “S This letter from Lionel Burrus would seem distinctly cranky. Certainly it is extremely curious. More curious still, however, is the alleged attack on

Schidlof in a Roman Catholic bulletin, from which M. Burrus quotes liberally. The bulletin, according to M. Burrus, accuses Schidlof of being “pro-Soviet, a notorious Freemason actively preparing the way for a popular monarchy in France’.6 It is a singular and seemingly contradictory accusation for one does not usually combine Soviet sympathies with an attempt to establish a monarchy. And yet the bulletin, as M. Burrus claims to quote it, makes charges that are even more extravagant:

The Merovingian descendants have always been behind all heresies, from

Arianism, through the Cathars and the Templars, to Freemasonry. At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Cardinal Mazarin, in July 1659, had their chateau of Barberie, dating from the twelfth century, destroyed. For the house and family in question, all through the centuries, had spawned nothing but secret agitators against the Church.”

M. Burrus does not specifically identify the Roman Catholic bulletin in which this quotation supposedly appeared, so we could not verify its authenticity. If it is authentic, however, it would be of considerable significance. It would constitute independent testimony, from Roman Catholic sources, of the razing of Chateau Barberie in Nevers. It would also seem to suggest at least a partial raison d’etre for the Prieure de

Sion. We had already come to see Sion, and the families associated with it, as manoeuvring for power on their own behalf and in the process repeatedly clashing with the Church. According to the above quotation, however, opposition to the Church would not seem to have been a matter of chance, circumstances or even politics. On the contrary it would seem to have been a matter of on-going policy. This confronted us with another contradiction. For the statutes of the Prieure de Sion had issued, at least ostensibly, from a staunchly Catholic institution.