John Harper wrote:
Were back to Plantard I’m afraid and the ideas he disseminated. This is clearly where the bloodline of Lincoln, Baigent, and Leigh originated – this was their erroneous take on the secret of the Holy Grail.
Ah, but did it? This is what I'm not clear on. Plantard certainly tried to insert the idea of a Merovingian
bloodline into the mystery, as the Priory documents and genealogies make clear, and Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh duly picked this up and ran with it. But a bloodline of Christ?
As Bergeredarcadie rightly points out, such an idea pre-dates HBHG, but I'm not at all sure that it was on Plantard's radar - at least, not until Henry Lincoln put it to him, at which point Plantard shrugged and said something like, "Well, that may be true, but who knows, it was all a very long time ago". One can almost envisage the lightbulb going off in his head, as he disseminated this piece of welcome news, and wondered how to weave it into his story.
By the way, I'm not one of those who writes Plantard off as a fraud or a charlatan, and I mean no disrespect to his memory in what I have written above. I believe him to be a key player in the mystery, in possession of certain secrets, and he's someone I take seriously, but there are times when Sion seem to follow this story, rather than lead it. And times when they clearly use invention, for whatever purpose.
Similarly, and with further relevance to this thread, Gino Sandri categorically denied a few years ago that Sion had anything whatsoever to do with a bloodline of Jesus and yet now he crops up in the "Bloodline" film, where presumably (I obviously haven't seen it) he does align himself with this idea. Again - leading the story or following it? Very, very odd.