Talk:Rennes-le-Château

message: Parchments in the devil's eyes? How have I not heard of this before?
ψΩφω —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rex Regis (talk • contribs) April 13, 2006.
* Added new material about the parchments. This information could be the heart of the whole "Mystery". Donach (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parchments? 

message: I agree - having spent years studying the subject and having lived in the village I was appalled to see my small additions completely deleted within a day. It's clear someone with an agenda against a balanced presentation is zealously guarding this page. Perhaps the Catholic church - now there's a conspiracy. Lets see if the page controller censors us again as material now replaced. 25 June 2007
* The second matter raised by Henry Lincoln, and re-investigated by Andrews and Schellenberger, is certainly undesirable to the Establishment. Donach (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, strangely, you don't seem to be able to say what the bias is. Paul B 00:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think, very clearly, the bias is in fact the entire article which is not so subtlely guided towards dubunking the mystery, which only presents one side of the subject. Highlighting the clear evidence related to the subject is admirable, but choosing to do little in expounding further on the legend and history surrounding the site only makes the subject fall flat. Both sides should be equally represented, with major (if sometimes outlandish) theories cited to add an interesting counter-point. --Yourwhitenoise 19:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article represents the clear consensus of historians. Both 'sides' do not get equal representation according to WP policy if there is a scholarly consensus for one side. Paul B 08:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't! The material on that website is in fact copied from this one. Paul B 08:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality in question 

message: I have removed a blatant attempt to publicise a product being sold on Amazon, a faked ancient manuscript. This seriously does not belong in an article about a village. Astonishing that this overt and outrageous attempt to use Wikipedia as a self-promoting publicity machine wasn't removed earlier...Almirena 05:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using this article as product propaganda 

message: I deleted the claim in the article that Sauniere "kept no clear records" as well as the link since this is highly inaccurate - Sauniere kept very detailed records of his selling of masses activites - demonstrated with presented documentation in a book by Jean-Jacques Bedu - the priest kept names and addresses of journals, other priests and individuals that he sent his ads to. The evidence for this is overwhelming and the actual primary documentation itself is in the possession of Antoine Captier, who lives in Carcassonne and who runs the Sauniere Museum in the village of Rennes-le-Chateau. Of course, Sauniere did not produce his selling of masses records during a Trial where he vehemently denied that he obtained all his wealth from the selling of masses - and he instead produced a bogus "List of Donors" where he tried to convey to his superiors that he acquired his wealth through both moral and legal means.
wfgh66  —Preceding comment was added at 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bedu is a good reference - one could only wish that Clare and Antoine Captier would publish all of the material they have, rather than keep it largely private and (as I have been informed) charge heavily for the privilege of viewing it. However, at least the evidence exists and is verifiable. --Almirena 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bedu's sources were restricted owing to the fact that Clare and Antoine Captier's archives were incomplete - that is, they only possessed Sauniere's accounts relating to the period 1893-1897 (according to Johan Netchacovitch). The archives relating to the period 1897-1915 have been recently rediscovered on Microfilm in a French library by a believer in the myth who believes that the pillar in Sauniere's church was "hollow" - Laurent 'Octonovo' Bucholtzer, who will pour all sorts of mystification over the evidence of Sauniere's Account Books. His forthcoming book will be called 'Rennes-le-Château, l'affaire paradoxale' and will be published by Philippe Marlin - who preferred to publish Frank Daffos instead of Jean-Luc Chaumeil (who has been marginalised and anathematised by the French Believers in the Myth). The Sauniere accounts relating to the years 1915-1917 were published by Pierre Jarnac without any commentary. When Rene Descadeillas researched for his book "Mythologie du Tresor de Rennes" during the 1970s he had full access to the whole archive of Sauniere's account books, which was then fully complete and in the sole possession of Clare and Antoine Captier.Wfgh66 09:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting an inaccurate claim 

message: "An International spiritual ascension community has formed around what is regarded by the "new age" community as a strong energy centre in the Rennes Le Chateau region causing real estate prices to have sky rocketed in recent years" -- Cite is given as "this is common knowledge in Southern France - the trend can be verified with a cursory reading of net postings" --- This is an absolutely classic example of an unacceptable style of cite. "Everybody knows, look it up for yourself" is not the way we should be doing cites (and "net postings" are one of the least reliable sources). -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unacceptable cite

message: Should television program "60 Minutes" be usable as a cite?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.102.16 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-written evidence

message: This is a common inscription found in many Roman Catholic Churches around the world. There is nothing to theorise about this inscription and I am susprised that the believers in the Myth are still chasing this wild goose. It is taken from a Common Decication of a Church. Sauniere's Church was re-dedicated in 1897 following the completion of his restorations and decorations. What mystery can there possibly be surrounding this mundane event? Wfgh66 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.ballyroanparish.ie/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=16
Ballyroan Parish, Dublin, Ireland
Parish History     
   
“This is a place of awe; 
this is God's house, the gate of Heaven, 
and it shall be called the royal court of God”
[Taken from the Entrance Antiphon for the dedication of a church]
Wfgh66 (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terribilis est locus iste  

message: "This torch was then picked up and carried further in 2003 in Dan Brown's bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code, though Brown's book never mentioned Rennes-le-Château by name."  
True, but the character who dies at the beginning, the curator of the Louvre museum, is called Saunière. Coincidence? ;)  When I read the book and saw the name Saunière, I thought there would be a reference to Rennes-le-Château and l'abbé Saunière later on in the story, but there wasn't. Just that name. Not that it matters, but if this article is going to mention The Da Vinci Code, might as well mention the Saunière character, even if the novel "never mentions Rennes-le-Château by name". Just a thought. Onaryc (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Da Vinci Code link 

message: I remember reading somewhere that the whole saga stems from the vanity of a Hapsburg prince and Sauniere's taking money from him to 'find proof' which Sauniere alleged was at Rennes-le-Château to validate a fanciful account of Prince Franz Joseph's lineage, as at some time in the 1800's Franz Joseph was alleged to of been asked to consider becoming King of a new French Monarchy. Does anyone else remember such a source as it does seem to account for all the origin 'stories' that Rennes-le-Château held some mysterious treasure. It might be worthwhile finding that source to expand further on the history of the Sauniere story. Petedavo talk contributions 02:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sauniere and Franz Joseph 

message: I actually saw the pillar on display tipped over and examined.  There is no secret hiding place.  I'd put this in the article, but since I'm the source, I don't think I can.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.213.11 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the pillar 

message: There is reasonable evidence of Saunière having been involved with selling masses etc (and possibly other activities of a similar nature).
If he #had# found some documents of the nature alleged - is it more likely that the Vatican/the RC hierarchy would have (a) paid him off repeatedly or (b) claimed that he was suffering from heretical delusions and had forged supposedly ancient documents to 'prove' his claim'? (He may well have found some antiquarian documents, possibly of historical interest, but there seems to be a discontinuity with the claims that are made.) Jackiespeel (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A question of plausibility

message: Is there a reason for this article to have a subsection named "Mont Cardou"? The mountain is not mentioned in any other section of the page, and doesn't really have a lot to do with the Rennes-le-Chateau as a commune at all. I mean, I know it is tied to the alleged mystery and all, but the page "Pech-le-Cardou" on other pages refer here, which is just silly.
Mansize010 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mont Cardou section? 

message: This article seems to be getting worse. There is no known evidence as we understand it today that Templars held "chateaux" in the area, if there is, someone should make correct references. They did have other property, like the church in Campagne, of course, but how it is related I cannot fathom. The importance of the castrum of Rennes itself was minor at best during Templar days, it was held by minor Occitan nobility from 1.000 up until the crusade, when it was abandoned after the fall of Termes and likely occupied by French crusaders. The chateau that resides there today is from later medieval times after French improvements had been made, and thus is particularly non-Templar as it largely postdates the Templar Order itself. Coustaussa is actually named as a minor castrum in the 13th century, but also abandoned by its Occitan nobles and people after the fall of Termes and occupied by the French since. Two other Chateaus that are falsely linked to Templars nearby come to mind; the thing at Blanchefort and the thing marked on the hiking map as "Chateau du Templiers". First of all, there is no known evidence that the remains of what we now call Blanchefort are linked to the Templars, nor what exactly it was supposed to be. Given its size and location, it was probably a simple military outpost. Second, the chateau marked as "du Templiers" at St-Just-et-le-Bézu was never a Templar chateau; this is a local legend only. It was actually the castrum and keep of "Albedun" or "Albezu", relatively large for its day. It had a garrison of about 200 knights, a small army for that time. It was never besieged during the Albigensian Crusade, but it seems to have capitulated twice. There is concrete evidence that one of the senior lords of Albedun (most lords were called Bernard de Sermon without suffix, so it is hard to discriminate between them), donated some of his property to the Templars and actually joined the order too. Afterwards, the only documented link between the Templars and the Sermons are nasty quarrels over property, I believe mostly in Espéraza. As an ironic sidenote, Albedun was likely actively harboring Cathars during the Albigensian crusade, and so one of the few true "Cathar castles" is now falsely named "Chateau du Templiers". Mansize010 (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deciphering the parchments - "Chateaux held by Templars"? 

message: The content is sourced.  Wikipedia is about verifiability not  "truth".  Do not remove that information again. MSJapan (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show the sources if the content is sourced Dickie birdie (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Schellenberger book is already cited in there twice.  What's the issue? MSJapan (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrews' and Schellenberger's book was discredited. Their book refers to bogus historical material planted by Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey in the Bibliotheque Nationale during the 1960s, all of it agenda-driven aiming to show that Pierre Plantard was descended from a Merovingian king. Okay, it does not matter if it's true or not, but the whole background story of Plantard and de Cherisey's actions, given in other books and explained as being a hoax, needs to be added into the article. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then add it in instead, from all the sources.  We've already got Priory of Sion to draw on. MSJapan (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrews and Schellenberger re-interpreted the Plantard and de Cherisey material to fit-in with their claim that the remains of Jesus Christ were buried on Mount Cardou. All lifted out of context. The whole corpus of Plantard and de Cherisey's material never mentions Jesus Christ at all. It's all about Plantard being descended from a Merovingian king. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

text: The subject matter is bigger than anyone would expect, due to the enormity of interest that attracts endless theories. Dickie birdie (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there are some more well-known than others; we don't need to be exhaustive, merely representative.  However, if there is enough material, we can always spin off said material into a new article specifically on conspiracy theories relating to Rennes if it gets too big. Then it just links here as a "main topic" for that section. MSJapan (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removals by Dickie birdie 

message: Most of the premise behind "Holy Blood Holy Grail" is speculative, even if some sources are cited.  It is therefore misleading to call it a "nonfictional" book.  Call it "theoretical" if you must.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones1972 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disingenuous to call "Holy Blood Holy Grail" a nonfictional book