In the Rennes-le-Chateau section the poster known as 'Irmine' started a thread about the supposed 'English Connection' to Rennes-le-Chateau. It didn't go very far IMHO. AFAIK the claim that there was or is any 'English Connection' to Rennes-le-Chateau has never been conclusively shown. The claim exists AFAIK purely within the Priory of Sion narrative.
...the affair of 1955-6 involving the 'English gentlemen' [is] so crucial to the bloodline theme. I'll start by saying that the true identity of Henri LOBINEAU/Comte Henri de LENONCOURT was Uncle Etienne
I find the English affair the most absorbing aspect of 20th century British history. It's surprising that so many English people seem to avoid this subject. It is still an official secret and is likely to remain so for many years to come.
Etienne PLANTARD working for the British royal family? Surely not!
It is impossible IMHO to do anything with hearsay such as this...so what about the rest of the claim?
I'll begin with Roscoe's quote from The Messianic Legacy
p288-289 (1996 Arrow edition):
One of these items referred specifically to the parchments allegedly found by Berenger Sauniere in the church at Rennes le Chateau in 1891. We had heard conflicting stories about what became of these documents, but all of them were too vague to be checked. Although it subsequently became clear that Cherisey had not seen them personally, he offered what appeared to be some tangible clues. According to Cherisey, the clues in question were confided to him by an aging aristocrat Henri, Comte de Lenoncourt. Speaking of Sauniere's discovery, Lenoncourt is reported by Cherisey as saying:
"Saunière' found it - and never parted with it. His niece. Madame James of Montazels, inherited it in February 1917. In 1965, she sold it to the International League of Antiquarian Booksellers. She was not to know that one of the two respectable lawyers was Captain Ronald Stansmore of the British Intelligence Service and the other was Thomas Frazer, the eminence grise of Buckingham. The parchments of Blanche de Castille are presently in a strongbox of Lloyds Bank Europe Limited. Since the article in the Daily Express a paper with a circulation of 3,000,000, nobody in Britain is unaware of the demand for the recognition of Merovingian rights made in 1955 and 1956 by Sir Alexander Aikman and Sir John Montague Brocklebank. Major Hugh Murchison Clowes and nineteen other men in the office of P.F.J. Freeman Notary by Royal Appointment."
About which Roscoe wrote:
Remember that this last piece in italics comes direct from Philippe de Cherisey. It later transpired that de Cherisey had got some of the names muddled but documents do indeed exist in a Lloyds Bank vault, though not the Lloyds Bank Europe Limited. They are now, allegedly, in a Parisian Bank located at 4 Place de Mexico.
To which Davinho asked a very, very reasonable question:
[And] you know this as fact?
Roscoe never answered, and then Renne and Wayward began to discuss Killer Whales on the thread!
Anyway, if we ignore for now the hearsay that 'Henri, Comte de Lenoncourt' is Stephen Plantard, we can still question whether there is any evidence at all to support the claims made above.
Firstly, I remember reading that section of The Messianic Legacy
and finding it particularly puzzling. BLL seemingly went to a lot of trouble to 'discover the truth' about the so-called 'English Connection', even going as far as questioning P.F.J. Freeman personally. After much huffing and puffing BLL deduced, true P.F.J. Freeman, that at least one of the so-called Notarised Documents was definitely a forgery.
However, they never, AFAIK, asked Freeman a very simple and straightforward question? Which was, of course... did twenty-two men ever enter this office to 'demand recognition of Merovingian rights'? Why did BLL not ask this simple, and absolutely essential question? They asked him numerous other questions, but not what would seem the most obvious and easy to either verify or dismiss!
IMHO they probably did indeed ask the question and were told, in no uncertain terms, that the event in question had never happened. That BLL did not confirm that the event did indeed take place speaks volumes IMHO and is more evidence of their narrative sleight-of-hand, designed to keep their claims intact.
The other obvious problem I noted was, despite their usual research diligence, BLL did not reproduce the supposed Daily Express
article that had supposedly been read by 3000000 British readers, supposedly leaving 'nobody in Britain unaware of the demand for the recognition of Merovingian rights made in 1955 and 1956 by Sir Alexander Aikman and Sir John Montague Brocklebank'!
AFAIK no one has ever reproduced that article...
As Richard has kindly pointed out, it doesn't exist in the Daily Express
archives. I'd be extremely interested to know if anyone has read it?
When one considers that at least one of the so-called Notarised Documents was without question a forgery, and the extreme unlikelihood that 22 men ever demanded recognition of Merovingian rights in the office of P.F.J. Freeman, and the possibility that the supposed Daily Express
article never actually existed (can someone produce it?), is there anything left to suggest that there is indeed any 'English Connection' at all?