http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/feed.xml The latest news from the website of Henry Lincoln http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog.html#0009 Another long silence ... for which I apologise. I have been struggling with this entry for far too long. You'll realise why if you read to the end. * * * * * Rennes-le-Château changes with each year. In many ways it grows less and less like the village which Bérenger knew. Less, too, like the village as I first knew it, when Elise's cows still ambled to the cattle-trough by the château for their evening drink. The cows are now long gone ... (too much traffic!) ... though Elise herself, looking not a day changed, still tends her wonderfully productive kitchen garden. The other day, I was sitting in Bérenger's own garden, which he had laid out in front of the Villa Bethania. I had chosen the spot where I am always aware of his smiling ghost, sitting beside me on the edge of the fountain. Here, indeed, he seems closer than elsewhere in his domaine. I was sure that, like me, he would have been pleased to see the groups of happy visitors enjoying the shade which he had provided. On that day, more now than a century past, when the camera had captured Marie beside the chestnut sapling and Bérenger perched by the pool, there was no shade for either of them. He had planted the trees for us, knowing that he would never see them in their full beauty as we do now. A few years ago, Jean-Luc gave me some tiny twigs from Bérenger's chestnut tree. One of them has survived and now - a sturdy knee-high, it promises to follow its parent's example in front of my own house. In a century from now, Bérenger's shade will still be bringing pleasure. A BROKEN PROMISE In my Blog entry for the 5th December 2009, I dealt with the question "Why did I not join with Baigent and Leigh in their Court action against Dan Brown?" I concluded my answer thus: I said, as I began to recount this sorry tale, that I find it difficult to deal with. Nor do I wish to dwell on such matters. However, now begun and because I have promised honest replies to the questions put to me on this web-site, I feel constrained to get rid of the unpleasantness in order to return to more entertaining and instructive matters. To do so, I must deal with one other allied matter. But not now. Enough, I think, is enough for the time being. Part Two of this outrageous saga will follow at a later date. Here is that "Part Two", which I begin with a preface: Yes - I find it difficult to deal with. I have tried on several occasions to write a cool and objective account of this matter, but each time I have had to abandon the attempt. Those of you who have met me, know that I try not to take myself too seriously. But this is not a subject for levity, dealing as it does with truth, honesty and - if this is not too old-fashioned a word to use in our cynical modern age - honour. * * * * * It can, I suppose, be readily understood that, at the height of the Da Vinci Code frenzy, almost any book with the word Jesus in the title, and bearing as author any of the names Baigent, Leigh or Lincoln would be guaranteed a fairly good sale. Such a book did, indeed, appear in 2006 : The Jesus Papers by Michael Baigent. * * * * * I must here make a short but important digression: When, in my Key to the Sacred Pattern (1997), I had occasion to refer to an important communication from Gérard de Sède, I thought it well to reproduce the document. I did this so that there would be no doubt nor question in the reader's mind that I might have edited the text in some way, to suit my purposes. Now ... Baigent's book is built around and is totally dependent upon a letter from an Anglican clergyman. But this vital document is not shown to the reader. Moreover Baigent begins his second chapter with these words: Throughout my career I've enjoyed correspondence with other historians and researchers into the truth behind accepted history, but some letters demand more attention than others. This letter certainly did. He then goes on to quote from it and say: "Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln and I simply didn't know what to do with this note." It seems to me that this can give no other impression than that the letter was part of his own correspondence, even possibly stemming from his own researches. I here reproduce that letter : Should you find the handwriting difficult to decipher, I copy the text below: ----------------------- ||| See website blog for the rest of this article ||| --------------------------- http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog.html#0009 http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog-p3.html#0008 At Rennes-le-Château, I fear, change has become inevitable. But some changes, it seems, are beginning to spread confusion. I have, for instance, often been asked for directions to the Devil's Armchair. My response is now frequently met with: "But I thought that was the Seat of Isis ... !" (And vice versa.) Well ... yes! This seems to be one of the unlooked-for effects of the Da Vinci Code. The goddesses seem to be taking over. So ... Isis now sits in the Devil's Armchair ... the Fourtou Cave has become 'the Magdalen's Grotto' ... and more than one excited visitor expects to be shown the house she lived in - or the cave where she was buried - or the garden she planted - or any other whimsical piece of wishful-thinking that you ... they ... anyone ... may conjure up. Let me make one simple - if disappointing - statement : There is not the tiniest bit, piece, shred, fragment, portion or even scintilla of evidence that Mary Magdalene ever came to this part of the world. (Nor Jesus, nor Joseph of Arimathea, not-neither !) True - there is a legend that the Marys came to Les Saintes Maries de la Mer - as is celebrated by the annual gypsy festival. But legends are not evidence. Believe them, if you will. I, however, make no acts of faith. And I shall continue to adhere to the old names by which I have known the local landmarks for forty years or so. I'm very fond of Isis - (even more so of Ma'at - not to mention Selket) - but as far as I am concerned, it's still the Devil in that Seat! Since I decided to spend my latter years in the Aude, I find myself being asked why I no longer lead groups around Rennes-le-Château and its area, as I used to do. Well - I suppose I didn't foresee the greatly augmented interest in the story - or the desire that so many people have to "hear it from the horse's mouth". I'm also only too aware that I'm the last of the original merry band of Plantard/de Sède/de Chérisey/Buthion et al. Mine are now the only remaining first-hand memories. So: I've agreed to act the guide to a couple of small groups in 2010. You'll find preliminary details on the 'Events' page of my web-site. http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog.html#0008 http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog-p3.html#0007 THIS STORY IS TRUE ... ONLY THE FACTS HAVE BEEN CHANGED I have promised to say a little more about Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Here then, are some not-too-serious observations: Both novel and not-very-successful film were entertaining rubbish, but I found it slightly irritating that Mr Brown seemed to be implying that he has based his story upon accurate facts. I can't comment on his ideas about Leonardo, or Opus Dei ... but, for Pierre Plantard - the Priory of Sion - Jesus - Mary Magdalene - and so on, I can only say: "Facts?!!? I'd love to see your sources, Honeybunch." The Priory of Sion, Mr Brown tells us, is "a real organisation"? Really? Who says so? (And that's a pertinent question.) "... Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale," he claims, "discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets ..." Oh, I give up! The Bibliothèque Nationale has never 'discovered' anything - and the Dossiers Secrets are not 'parchments'. I could go on ... All or any of these ideas should be perfectly acceptable in a work of fiction - but here they are loudly proclaimed to be truths, and millions of people have been seriously misled and continue fervently to believe in the veracity of Mr Brown's fantasies. Howsoever and be that as it may ... a fictional treatment of the story is no bad idea. And it should not be forgotten that, before I stumbled upon Rennes-le-Château, I was a working writer for television, already with a couple of hundred screen credits. They were all drama scripts - Lost Treasure of Jerusalem ... ? was my first documentary film - so it's not surprising that thoughts of 'fictionalising' the Saunière story had drifted into my head. However, I felt that, being committed to the reality of Rennes-le-Château, I would now find 'playing with it' rather uncomfortable. But I was sure that someone, some day, would see the possibilities. True, I know a great deal more about the subject than does Mr Brown, but some of his story-telling techniques seem to me to be more than a little laboured and he has missed some splendid chances. (His knowledge of France and French culture, I find somewhat limited. And who, en passant, has ever encountered a Frenchman with a name like "Bézu Fache"?) I consider his principle failure, though, to lie in his choice of hero. All right ... he has two excuses. First, he'd already, I understand, introduced the character in an earlier book and wanted to use him again. Understandable. But his story and its main setting lie in France. This American character doesn't 'belong'- he's the proverbial 'sore thumb'. Though - and here's Brown's second excuse - if you want Hollywood to show interest, you must have an American leading man. And it's in this latter point, through ignorance of the story's background, that he missed a marvellous opportunity. The story can legitimately have an American hero. Indeed, I could begin the story in America ... specifically, in Louisiana, where live the Cajuns (who would, of course, have provided the music for the film.) For those of you who are not aware of this fact, 'Cajun' is all that remains of the original name 'Arcadian'. They were the dwellers in Arcadia - the country which Nicolas Fouquet - (King Louis XIV's Minister of Finance) - had attempted to establish in Canada. And Fouquet, remember, had learned "a secret which kings would have pains to draw from him". When Canada finally became "British", the French Arcadians left, eventually to become the Cajuns of Louisiana. And with them would have gone whatever secrets Fouquet had entrusted to them when they left France. Even without exploring the idea any further, it's possible to see how much more satisfying - and true to its origins - the story could have become ... and with a genuinely American leading man - and music - to boot! * * * * * AN UNEXPECTED CONTRIBUTOR TO THE MYSTERY Here's another fragment which has surfaced from my archive. I remember first stumbling upon it when working on The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and being surprised to find that someone like Kipling should have been pursuing such ideas. It gave me much food for thought. For a while, I had it pinned, with other quotes, to the beam above my desk. THE DISCIPLE by RUDYARD KIPLING He that hath a Gospel To loose upon mankind, Though he serve it utterly - Body, soul and mind - Though he go to Calvary Daily for its gain - It is his Disciple Shall make his labour vain. He that hath a Gospel, For all earth to own Though he etch it on the steel, Or carve it on the stone - Not to be misdoubted Through the after-days - It is his disciple Shall read it many ways. It is his disciple (Ere those bones are dust) Who shall change the charter, Who shall split the trust - Amplify distinctions, Rationalise the Claim, Preaching that the Master Would have done the same. It is his disciple Who shall tell us how Much the Master would have scrapped Had he lived to now - What he would have modified Of what he said before - It is his disciple Shall do this and more. He that hath a Gospel Whereby Heaven is won - (Carpenter or Cameleer, Or Maya's dreaming son) - Many swords shall pierce him, Mingling blood with gall; But His Own Disciple Shall wound him worst of all. I pass it on now, so that those of you who have never encountered it before, may be given matter for quiet consideration. If - for some of you - it does not chime with your own views ... (as it may not with mine, remember!) ... then - ponder upon another of my favourite quotations, which I try to keep always in mind. The words come from Oliver Cromwell : I beseech ye ... in the Bowels of Christ ... to consider that Ye may be mistaken ... I WISH YOU ALL A HAPPY - AND ABOVE ALL - AN INTERESTING 2010 http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog.html#0007 http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog-p2.html#0006 I have received a number of requests for an explanation of why I did not join with Baigent and Leigh in the case for plagiarism which they brought against Dan Brown. I will confess that this is a subject which I have been reluctant to approach, as it touches upon matter which I find extremely distasteful and which, in large part, has been the cause of my previous years of silence. It is, however, a subject which has been hovering in the background for too long and which I have been aware that, in the interests of honesty, I would eventually have to confront. Let me begin with what was publicly reported: My non-participation, according to the Press, was presumed to be "due to ill-health". This is nonsense. I do not believe that the fact that I now find walking an extremely painful exercise, has any effect upon my brain! (Though I leave this to others to judge.) Not surprisingly, I was approached by Baigent's and Leigh's literary agent in an attempt to persuade me to join with them in the action and I was bound to give the matter my serious consideration. Especially since it is obvious that The da Vinci Code - (which I shall deal with at another time) - had drawn extensively upon our work. For example: M. Plantard and his Prieuré de Sion would never have been heard of outside France - (and perhaps not even there) - had we not reported our researches and personal meetings in Holy Blood, Holy Grail. However I decided against, for several reasons : 1. Our book had been in the public domain for almost a quarter of a century and many writers - (including Richard Leigh's sister) - had used our material and our hypothesis. Why had we made no earlier objection? 2. Millions of people in their twenties and thirties had been too young even to be aware of HBHG when it was first published. Our hypothesis, as expressed in Brown's book, came to them with the freshness and power of a thunder-bolt. Indeed, we had ourselves pointed out that a special curiosity of biblical scholarship is its ability to bury a 'new' idea, so that it must be repeated afresh for each new generation. 3. HBHG had been a best-seller on publication. Not many authors have the good fortune to see their work back in the best-seller lists after more than twenty years. 4. Our royalties had received a considerable boost from Brown's book. Where, therefore, lay our cause for complaint? The answer, it seemed to me, lay in money. The very great deal of money pouring into Mr Brown's coffers. But what made me think that here lay a great part of my co-authors' motivation? To answer this question, I must pose another. Would it be considered proper that only two out of three writers of a book should be entitled to share its royalties? More specifically, should not I, as one of the co-authors of our second book - The Messianic Legacy - be expected to receive my one-third share? I would imagine that most people would consider the answer to this question to be "Yes". However, such is not the case. My fellow-authors found a means to retain my third, suggesting that it was for me to prove that I had any rights therein. Here lies the aspect of this business which I find most distasteful. That they had conceived of such an idea, I find incredible - that they carried it out, I consider despicable. Even were their arguments valid - which I do not consider them to be - the selfish ingratitude strikes me as being appalling. Such venality is, in my eyes, beneath contempt. I had given them - freely - the results of my years of research. I do not wish to give the impression that I am seeking recompense ... the sums involved are small ... but to indicate attitude. It seems that there are some who set a higher store on money than do others. Perhaps from this, you may gain an insight into my reasons for 'keeping my distance'. The above is, I am afraid, a piece of unpleasantness ... but it is part of the reality of this story. I said, as I began to recount this sorry tale, that I find it difficult to deal with. Nor do I wish to dwell on such matters. However, now begun and because I have promised honest replies to the questions put to me on this web-site, I feel constrained to get rid of the unpleasantness in order to return to more entertaining and instructive matters. To do so, I must deal with one other allied matter. But not now. Enough, I think, is enough for the time being. Part Two of this outrageous saga will follow at a later date. Of more interest is something which has just come to light during my sifting through my archive. In Key to the Sacred Pattern, (pp40/41), I report how, in 1971, Gérard de Sède had sent me the first photographs of "The Poussin Tomb". Here is one in which he depicts himself as the kneeling shepherd. Looking at this image again, after so many years, reminds me of what we have lost. The demented avarice which led criminals to attempt to break into the tomb ... and the thoughtless vandalism which made the owner destroy it ... have deprived us of who knows what precious knowledge? What might we have learned if expert investigation had been made.? The destruction of the tomb was a huge loss. But at least it taught me to ignore the arrogant and blinkered opinions of "experts" such as Anthony Blunt! http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog.html#0006 http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog-p2.html#0005 My apologies for another untoward pause, this time occasioned by work - (yes, I am still working!) - and also the slow sifting through my library and archive, which have been buried in boxes following my departure from the Cotswolds. And extraordinary treasures are coming to light - not all of them serious ... as, for example: Those of you who have read Key to the Sacred Pattern may remember my account (pp 161/162) of the mad moment when Gérard de Sède gave me a black eye. Here is the ocular (!) proof ... a fun photograph taken en souvenir by Henri Buthion some few moments after the event. It is typical of dear Henri's punctilious attention to detail, that he seems to have accompanied his ice-cubes with a table napkin of exactly the right shade to match my shirt. (Though both seem to clash with my hair!) However, some more serious records are surfacing, which I hope to be sharing with you shortly. * * * * Yesterday, I received yet another enquiry regarding my old BBC Chronicle films, which served to remind me that I had promised to expand upon that 'ludicrous tale' - and attempt to answer the question: "Why are they not (legally) available?" The background is somewhat complex - and the definitive answer to that question will lie, if anywhere, in the archives of the BBC. I don't doubt that the personalities involved will long have faded into the obscurity of retirement ... or further. I can only, therefore, recount my end of the saga. Doubtless, other fragments of the absurd story may survive of which I am not aware, though I do possess some interesting tape-recordings of meetings which certainly shed some light. (I intend to investigate the possibility of making them available on this site.) The tale, then, begins almost forty years ago, in 1972, after the transmission of the first Chronicle film, The Lost Treasure of Jerusalem...? It was clear that another Rennes-le-Château programme would pull in a sizeable audience, who were already crying out for more. The Saunière story was going to be good for viewing figures. The inevitable follow-up had begun to shape itself in my head. But I could see that there was a great deal more time-consuming research to be done in France. However, I was lucky enough to be offered work on a French film and this meant that my spare time could be devoted to hunting through the treasures in the Bibliothéque Nationale. And so I had been working in Paris for some months, when I received an unexpected phone call from the BBC. (This story, too, is to be found in Key to the Sacred Pattern - pp 93 et seq.) This call was the first intimation that someone had been attempting to get the follow-up Rennes-le-Château film off the ground - without my knowledge. I had been anticipating working on an eventual second film with Andrew Maxwell Hyslop, the director who had made the first. But now I learned that he had moved elsewhere in the Corporation. My caller was another BBC director - one Roy Davies. It seemed that a viewer of Lost Treasure had, without any evidence, convinced Davies that he had found Saunière's gold. Here was a programme with a built-in audience - without any need for me or my further researches. So Davies had set about mounting a film of the digging up of "the Treasure of the Millionaire Priest". Knowing nothing of Rennes-le-Château, nor of the delicacy needed when handling this little community, he was committed to his filming dates, with a crew already on stand-by, when he discovered that he was not dealing with a 'usual' kind of location. He was a stranger. The villagers were suspicious of strangers. They slammed the door in his face. He was, therefore forced, with extreme reluctance, to turn to me for help - which meant a fair amount of umble-pie eating, with abject apologies for having kept me in the dark and urgent pleas for my assistance. Such grovelling would stick in anybody's craw - and it was certainly not calculated to endear me to Davies - especially as it quickly became obvious that his 'treasure' was fool's gold and that, without me, he would have no film - plus the black mark of having wasted a sizeable chunk of Chronicle's budget.) Although we went on to make the following two R-le-C films together, there always remained an under-current of mutual discomfort and distrust. And it seems that he never gave up trying to make a Rennes-le-Château programme of his own - (I know of at least one other abortive attempt with yet another treasure-hunting fantasist.) The ever-present warning notes clanged most clearly when we were making The Shadow of the Templars. I had been contracted to write a ninety-minute programme - which was duly made. It was not until we were in the final stages of putting the film together in the studio, that Davies suddenly informed me that I would only have a sixty-minute slot. I would have to cut thirty minutes from the film - no easy feat. Now it was in this programme that I first revealed the landscape geometry and I had filmed the curious pool hidden by the copse of trees in the centre of the pentacle. (Key to the Sacred Pattern pp133 et seq.) Davies appeared nervous about this. 'Someone' he said, had told him that the pool was used by locals for washing their clothes! This was a patently ridiculous idea. What locals? The aerial photograph shows its isolation : Nevertheless, this was the explanation which he apparently preferred to my question marks and it was this strange water basin with the exploration of the key locations of the geometry which I had to lose. The un-transmitted film was destroyed ... a tragedy compounded by the fact that, anticipating the film to come, I had no good photographic record of the find. Only a very few unsatisfactory shots survive, taken on my first visit to the strange site, in late January 1975. Mere visual note-taking - this is the sole image to give any proper sense of scale: And there is this shadowy glimpse of the entire surface: Its construction was of stone. The walls were sheer-sided and the water maintained a constant depth of about three feet. Like the "Poussin Tomb", the pool is now gone. With the passing of time, I eventually assembled the material for a fourth film. Although other producers were interested and my relationship with Davies was not too comfortable, I felt a - perhaps unnecessary - obligation to take it to the BBC, where he was now editor of Timewatch, the successor programme to Chronicle. My archive contains an interesting tape-recording of our discussion, when I showed him the extraordinary new developments in the research. He became excited by the latest discoveries and we agreed to set to work. As editor of Timewatch, he would not be directing this film - which, I confess was something of a relief to me. He duly appointed a director and sent us off to make the pre-production reconnaissance trip, at the end of which he would join us to see the new locations. It was during this trip, in early1990, that yet another discovery was to be made. The geometry appeared to indicate the importance of a location a mile or so to the north of Rennes-le-Château. Curiously, this fell at a place which was labelled on the map as 'Grand Camp'. We decided to investigate and were astonished to find enormous stone walls and a huge assemblage of bee-hive huts. When Davies arrived on the following day, we took him to see what we had found. He was as impressed and puzzled as were we. The site, he said, reminded him of nothing so much as the ancient City of Mycenae. We were more than happy with the discoveries to which we had been led by the geometry. Certainly, our film was going to raise some remarkable and intriguing questions. A day later I was left to continue my researches on the ground, while the other two set off for England to make final preparations and to set the date for filming. At this point, something changed. On the next morning, I received a call from a worried director. He told me that, on the way home, Davies had said that he wanted to make this film "without Lincoln". The director had pointed out that it could hardly be made without explaining how the new discovery had been made ... and that led directly back to my work. Even so, the director was worried by Davies' attitude as he and his crew were booked and we had still been given no start date. In the ensuing weeks, Davies continued to defer giving the go-ahead and eventually cancelled the production, which I later made with TV2 Danmark. This film, incorporating more material and titled The Secret, was repeated numerous times on the Discovery Channel. But at the BBC a strange hostility was developing. As soon as video-recordings became available, viewers had begun writing to tell me that when they asked for copies of the Rennes-le-Château documentaries, they were told that these were not available as "there was no public interest". This seemed a curious response - especially as I had been approached by BBC Enterprises - (the separate and independent commercial arm of the Corporation.) This organisation had come to me with the idea of packaging the three films for the video market, with new introductory and concluding sections, which I was to make. I thought that this was a good idea - and a contract was duly signed. But before the ink was dry, I received a telephone call to tell me that Enterprises would not be able to proceed with the project. No explanation was forthcoming. And then Timewatch produced The History of a Mystery, in which, by debunking a rather silly book, they tried to destroy the Saunière story, labelling it as 'pseudo-history'. What has happened? This is a confusing tale and it is not easy to draw together all the various elements, but something curious has occurred. Why the complete change of attitude at the BBC? Why the refusal to sell the films - though one of them is now available free of charge on the Internet? Those of you who have taken the trouble to check my findings know that I have been careful to restrict myself to "that which is demonstrable and provable". The mathematics and the geometry stand. Why do some people wish to pretend that they do not? Perhaps it is all no more than a question of 'personalities', but ... I regret ... copies of the Chronicle films are not available - except illegally. But - grieve not - they're decades out-of-date and all the material is available in my non-BBC films and books. http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog.html#0005 http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog-p2.html#0004 The season at Rennes-le-Château is coming to an end and I have been astonished at how busy the village continues to be - which explains the gap since I last posted any up-dates. Rennes-le-Château is still slowly recovering from the unfortunate effects of the previous municipal regime and a much happier atmosphere is now beginning to be felt. For those who have never visited the village, the changes which it suffered under the last mayor may come as something of a surprise.   For someone like me - with forty years of acquaintance - there is much to regret. Saunière's Domaine is in desperate need of repair and restoration. Brickwork is crumbling, the Tour Magdala and its belvedere require attention.   And yet, more than enough money for the work was wasted on a totally unnecessary new Town Hall. For me, the saddest of the changes has been the desecration of Bérenger's  last resting place. He purchased his plot at the top of his cemetery, in perpetuity, so that he could forever watch over his flock, with Marie at his side.   Now his tomb lies outside the cemetery wall - and in unconsecrated ground.   Worse still, his grave is turned north/south ... a pagan burial.  I consider this to be a cruel thing to do to a priest and I find it unforgivable.   That the Church allowed it, I find astonishing.    However, as some small amends, APARC has recently placed a plaque at the original site.  And Marie's resting place beside him is now once more marked. *   *   *  *   *  I have promised to deal further with the curious attitude of Jean-Luc Chaumeil, the BBC's now preferred "expert" in the matter of Rennes-le-Château. The story is amusing if unimportant, but it demonstrates how easily fantasy can become accepted fact.  It began in 1973, when I received a letter from Gérard de Sède.   (See my Key to the Sacred Pattern - pp116 et seq).   In it, he told me that with 'one of his colleagues', he had found Bérenger Saunière's treasure and he was prepared to offer me photographs.   I did not fall for what was an obvious 'con' and the fraudulent photographs were eventually sold to a magazine.   (Charivari, No 18, Paris, Oct-Dec 1973). The accompanying article, titled The treasure exists - we have seen it, was written by de Sède's colleague - who proved to be the said Jean-Luc Chaumeil.   What sort of 'expert' is this?  One must certainly question his reliability! Some few years later, I was preparing my third BBC film on Rennes-le-Château.   Pierre Plantard, in his role as Grand Master of the Prieuré de Sion, had agreed to cooperate and said that he would appoint someone to speak on screen as their spokesman.   To my amusement, this spokesman proved to be Chaumeil. All was prepared for the filming, which was to take place in a small Parisian art gallery owned by Chaumeil's mother.   As mama was brushing her son's hair for his appearance before the camera Plantard, at the very last moment, decided that he needed no spokesman - he would speak for himself.   I was delighted - Chaumeil and his mother were incensed. I suspect that it was this incident that launched Chaumeil's hostility to myself, the Prieuré, Plantard and all his works. Time passed and then, at the height of the Da Vinci Code excitement, Chaumeil was interviewed by the French newspaper Le Figaro.   After so many years, the filming fiasco evidently still rankled.  Amongst other inventions he made the ludicrous claim that I addressed Pierre Plantard as "Your Majesty"!  What, one wonders, makes someone decide to invent such nonsense? However, I have since seen a Belgian documentary film in which this rubbish is repeated as 'fact'.      De omnibus dubitandum ... (Don't believe anything ... !) Chaumeil is one of our least trustworthy of witnesses. *   *   *  *   * While on this subject - another highly entertaining 'witness' appears in the recent film Bloodline, on which I have also been asked to comment.   This is a person who gives the impression that he is one of the Prieuré's Inner Circle and possesses a great deal of "secret" knowledge.    The director, seeking my opinion, showed me some material which was not included in the film.  Here is the relevant portion of my e-mailed response:  ... I gave up on his credibility (and read no more) after his e-mail description of Baigent flying over the pool in the triangular field.    Does his description not include 'a stormy day' (real) and 'flowers on an altar' (imaginary)?   That garbage is total fantasy, born in a ... dream world somewhere!   He read my account in Key to the S P (see p 135 et seq) and is embroidering his partial memory thereof.   That trip happened a good six months before I'd ever met Leigh (who, as far as I know, has never visited R-le-C, either in the air or on foot!) This is a very good example of how people half-remember what they have read and then are too lazy, or too foolish, to check their 'facts' before giving utterance. I found the description of Baigent's and Leigh's "flight" particularly hilarious.   It stems from my statement that I needed " ... to know more than a map can tell me.   Aerial photographs seem an effective means of exploring the landscape ... ". Our 'witness' had forgotten the rest of the sentence: " ... and are readily available from the French Geographical Institute," from whence, for a small fee, I acquired them. Ignoring the fact that, at the relevant time, neither of my co-authors had yet heard of Rennes-le-Château, the thought of us having the resources to own - or even hire - a flying machine is too funny for words.   Though I have learned over the years that many people ... (including an erstwhile Literary Editor of a supposedly responsible Sunday paper) ... are convinced that Holy Blood, Holy Grail made us millionaires ! If only ... ! http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog.html#0004 http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog-p1.html#0003 It's hard to know where to begin. You've sent me a flood of questions and I'll do my best to deal with them as soon as possible. And my thanks for the many flattering messages of greeting. But : It's clear from many of you ... and from people I talk to at Rennes-le-Château ... that a large percentage of you are very out-of-date with developments in the Saunière Saga (or have only recently encountered it). There is more to this story than Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The da Vinci Code ! For those of you who haven't yet encountered it, I suggest that you read my Key to the Sacred Pattern. It's easier to read than many of the other books - (including my own) - and will fill you in on what has been going on since 1982. I've also written The Holy Place and The Templars' Secret Island (the latter with Erling Haagensen). If you want to know more about the story of Bérenger Saunière, then look for Rennes-le-Château, Saunière's Secret by JEAN-LUC ROBIN. In my opinion, it's the best of the books on the subject. But then, of course, I would say that ... Jean-Luc was a dear friend, which explains why I translated his book into English! There is also my DVD - Henry Lincoln's Guide to Rennes-le-Château, which fills in a lot more of the visual background - including many things which are no longer accessible, or are changed, or have simply disappeared. And there is The Secret (sometimes titled Secret of the Templars) which is a 4 x 30 minute series which I made with ERLING HAAGENSEN for Danish Television. (This DVD is in English, but some versions may have Danish sub-titles). * * * * * On that thought ... I've had more than one communication in foreign tongues. I understand English ... I speak French ... and struggle with German. If you want to be sure that I understand you properly, then please don't test my linguistic abilities much beyond those languages. * * * * * There have been numerous enquiries for my opinion of a film called Bloodline. It's a nonsense, of course - though I gather that some people in the US of A seems to take it seriously. I shall be dealing with it at more length eventually, as I develop the site. And, of course, there are constant requests seeking information on how to obtain copies of my three 1970's BBC Chronicle films. The short answer is that you can't - at least, not legally! Thereby hangs yet another ludicrous tale, which I shall expand upon eventually. * * * * * Of apparent interest to a number of readers of Holy Blood, Holy Grail is the question: "How do three people write one book?" Well, of course, they don't. Here's a sort of explanation: As I made clear in my brief Introduction to the book - (though I suspect that many readers don't bother with Introductions! They should! Why do you think we poor writers waste our time on them?) - I had already made two films on the subject for the BBC and was buried in mounds of research, when I met Richard Leigh in 1975. He joined me to help with the work on my third film, The Shadow of the Templars. Now, Richard hated leaving England and could only with great difficulty be prised away from London. I later managed to get him - kicking and screaming - to Paris on two occasions to talk with Pierre Plantard. (Richard had a reasonable command of French). Though he never, in his entire life, managed to set foot in Rennes-le-Château. Richard, therefore, remained glued to his desk, while I cavorted about France interviewing people and looking for dusty tomes in equally dusty libraries. It was Richard, by the way who, some time later, encountered Michael Baigent and brought him on board. Baigent proved to be a gifted researcher, though he understood no French. The three of us would meet frequently to pool the fruits of our labours and to spend lengthy hours in discussing the material and developing the hypothesis which later became Holy Blood, Holy Grail. And so it was Richard who 'put the words on the page'. (He had, for a number of years worked as a lecturer in universities on both sides of the Atlantic, which explains his love of such words as 'epistemological'!) My working life had been spent as a writer for television and thus my prose style was much more direct and less 'wordy' than was Richard's, (which explains why my own books are so much shorter!) Richard re-wrote any passages which the others of us produced as he wished, as he told me, to be able to say that "the prose was his" - with which I remain perfectly happy. And so the book is by all three of us, though our contributions were more than somewhat different. * * * * * Another frequent enquiry concerns the famous "parchments" supposedly found by Saunière and now often described as "fake". This matter is not quite so simple as it seems. (What is there ever simple in this story?) The 'fake' idea seems to have originated with someone called Jean-Luc Chaumeil - (a character well known to me) - who is now often wheeled out, especially by the BBC, as some sort of 'expert'. Beware! The statement that the documents are 'fake' - especially when uttered by someone who supposedly "knows" - is enough to make many people accept what's been said, with its implication that the documents are of no value and should therefore be ignored. But I have a simple mind and love to ask simple questions. And here I ask simply: "They are fake ... what?" The statement is meaningless. The documents exist. I ask again: "They are fake what?" It matters not if they were composed in the Dark Ages, or were concocted last week. They exist and merit careful examination. Even those who dismiss them agree that they contain ciphered messages. It should not be forgotten that when I was originally working on them back in 1971, I sought the advice of cipher experts at British Intelligence HQ in Cheltenham. I was told by the code-breaker who examined them that the lengthier of the two messages - (Bergère, pas de tentation ... etc) - was "one of the most complex ciphers he had ever seen". It would, he said, have taken months of work to prepare and was utterly unbreakable without the key. It was no light-hearted game. "Whoever gave you the decipherment must have had access to the key". When I told him of my sceptical approach to Gérard de Sède's statement that they had been broken by the French Army Cipher Department, using computers, he agreed with me and said that the code "was not a valid problem for a computer". (Anyone wishing for the exact mechanics of the cipher should consult my book, The Holy Place). However, as The Holy Place also explains, the parchments conceal something of much more importance than complex secret codes. So why do Chaumeil and others now wish you to think that they are "fake"? This is yet another jollity which I shall be dealing with later ... http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog.html#0003 http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog-p1.html#0002 I have but recently returned from my trip to Scandinavia and it is only today that I have been able to find out what has been happening on this site.   Why "only today"?  Well - I've promised that I will invent nothing .... so I must tell you that this site was created for me by one of my grandsons. He just had time to put it up before he disappeared. I have had to await his reappearance before I could gain access to it. There is, however, nothing strange about his disappearance. He had other things on his mind. It was only yesterday that he returned from his honeymoon.       I'm sure that you will forgive him, as I do, for leaving us temporarily 'in the dark'. I don't expect him to do it again. *   *   *  *   *  I must say that I am astonished to see how many of you have already found me here - and in so short a time.   From all of you who have made contact, I must beg a further indulgence. I shall endeavour to respond to you as soon as possible either individually or on this blog. But not today. This evening I am giving a talk at L'Eveché in Alet-les-Bains.   A Bientôt, http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog.html#0002 http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog-p1.html#0001 For the past thirty-plus years, my work has attracted a great deal of public attention. However, I am by nature a private individual. Like all, I hope, normal people, I cherish that privacy as well as my space for thought, reflection and writing. But the world, I'm afraid, is filled with obsessive 'nut-cases', some of whom seem prepared to go to enormous lengths to track down people such as myself. On one particularly un-amusing occasion, a person appeared, with suitcase, intent on moving in. I have also, more than once, had to change my (ex-directory) telephone number. I am sure that most sane and sensible people realise that the Rennes-le-Château story attracts more than its fair share of such cranks and crack-pots and that my life would become intolerable did not I attempt to build some sort of protective fence. But these are not the only reasons for my reclusiveness. Over the years, much has happened upon which I might have wished to comment, or provide an explanation. To express an opinion ... to deny or inform. As I begin to fill in some of those missing details on this site, those reasons will become - I hope - more clear and more understandable. Those people who have met me in person know full well that I am always ready to respond, openly and honestly ... quite often jokily ... to any questions hurled at my head. Quite simply, I have nothing to hide. As for the jokes ... well ... I take the work seriously, but I don't see why I need to be over-serious about myself. So: Rather than produce a long and meandering 'stream-of-consciousness' waffle, I shall, for now, divide this Site into various sections, each of which will deal with some or other aspect of what, over the years, I have learned is of interest to so many of you. Quite often, I expect to copy some or other fragment from the Net in order to put it right. But ... I promise you ... I shall invent nothing. Neither shall I lie nor fantasise. However ... ... ... All of us, as we grow older, learn that memories can sometimes become fogged or unreliable. I don't doubt that I shall be just as guilty of such failings as would anybody else. I do, though, have a precious archive of documents, photographs and recordings of interviews with various key people in the saga, etc - some of which I intend to share with you. And of course, there are my films which show Rennes-le-Château - and other places - (as well as myself), changing through the decades. I'm quite sure that a great deal of this material is going to prove both instructive and - I hope - entertaining. http://www.henrylincoln.co.uk/blog.html#0001