Arcadia Discussion Zone

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone would like to discuss the Priory of Sion again. Perhaps go back over ground that has already been long since ‘thread’.

After many years research I have finally 'settled' on a loose scenario that IMHO makes sense of the original 1956 Priory of Sion. However, I state right now that I have no direct evidence to support this scenario, only what are IMHO circumstantial 'similarities'! I’m also unsure if the scenario has been offered before here or elsewhere. As far as I can recall I have not read it elsewhere.

Before I go ahead and write what I think was going on, I’d like to know if anyone else would be willing to give their opinion on what was the purpose of the original 1956 registration. It can be short and simple, and whacky as you like, as long as it is what you genuinely think was going on!

I’m sure lots of people have opinions. I’d like to hear them and won’t demand direct corroborating evidence in support, although I can’t say that others will be the same. Even PM me if you want.

For example, according to Jean-Luc Chaumeil (and HWMNBN I think) the original 1956 Priory of Sion was nothing more than a club for Boy Scouts. Chaumeil claims that when he 'interviewed the founding members' of the Priory of Sion they 'all' 'fell about laughing' when he questioned them regarding its purpose.

I am however inclined to disagree with the Priory of Sion Boy Scout scenario.

What do you think?

Regards,

Spartacus

Hi Spartacus,
Just like you, I only have hypothesis. Maybe the original POS was registered before the founding members had fully decided on it's purpose? Sort of trademarking a name to be used for future projects, not specifically the Boy Scouts but more a big boys club ( I have heard the masons being called this quite a few times ). Registering an organisation would give freedom to experiment with whatever plans they came up with, from surrealist art to anarcho-monarchism. Just one of many possibilities.
At the other end of the spectrum, maybe it was the start of their grand design to bring the RLC story to the rest of the world whilst promoting their own agendas. All pre-planned and researched to ad infinitum?
We could always ask Gino Sandri or Nicholas Haywood
Regards
Nic

Hi Nic,

Thanks for the reply.

Nic wrote:



Well, that might tally with the supposed claim by André Bonhomme (by way of Chaumeil) that the original purpose of the PoS was simply ‘for fun’. However, it is worth recalling that the Sion name was not simply just ‘trade-marked’. There was also a sub-title, abbreviated to CIRCUIT, and a set of strict Articles. These clearly characterised the Priory of Sion as a traditionalist Catholic lay-order, with the specific purpose of ‘renewing French society’ by way of traditional knighthood. The first step would supposedly involve the building of a Priory (for prayer, meditation, and study) on the nearby Mount Sion. It seemed very specific and straightforward.

Nic wrote:



The reference to Boy Scouts is generally associated with youths (by Chaumeil and HWMNBM at least). Plantard’s former association with youth groups is usually referred to by Sion sceptics who accept the Boy Scout scenario. However, the Sion Articles declare that Priory members must be at least 21 years old. The Priory of Sion Man Scout Troop, renewing French society ‘for fun’, by way of council housing, rising damp, bus routes, and ancient Catholic knighthood!

Nic wrote:



Wow, I thought you were Mr Haywood. But would either know more than you or me? Or if they did, would anyone even accept what they had to say, particular if it went against a beloved hypothesis? I’d be more interested in hearing the opinion of the other forum members. I’m sure Roger, Seeker, Tim, Roscoe, Sandy, Silence etc have an opinion. Perhaps if they could tear themselves away from the Crista Controversy for a few moments they could throw a few crumbs to this thread (hint, hint).

Regards,

Spartacus

Ha ha, that has tickled me Spartacus . Do pardon me though when I say I'm not overly flattered ( I believe Mr Haywood is a few years my senior and I don't think I could pull off that wry smile and poker face, also he is a member here ). I was being a tad sarcastic about their involvement but I bow to their greater knowledge about the POS, certainly more than mine but not some of our other members at Arcadia. Would anyone else agree that the POS purpose seemed to change and morph with it's members particular agendas similar or parallel to Pierre Plantard's motives appearing to move from his traditionalist Roman Catholic roots to his Merovingian and St Clair claims?
Are the stories of Pierre Plantard being involved in Right-Wing political activity and attempting to form an anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic organization correct? Please elucidate me on this, as it is something I find particularly difficult to judge as it requires an understanding of the French socio-political climate of the time that I can only obtain opinionated views of. eg:-
http://priory-of-sion.com/posd/traditionalist.html
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... sion01.htm
Regards
Nic

Rather an odd name for such a purpose, apparently taking a name for the group that gave the impression it had some interest in low-cost housing wasn't a priority (pardon the pun).

TCP

No, I wouldn't agree with that assessment at all. The Traditionalist (capital "T") quasi-chivalric underworld of the post-war period was perfectly suited for the launch of a shadowy fabricated monarchical claim. There were many launched at that time, and from the same launching pad.

But I fully understand that this is of little interest to most "researchers" in the PoS/RLC field, which should keep the great hamster wheel a-spinnin' for many years to come.

TCP

Traditionalist Catholic lay apostolates weren't illegal in 1956 France. Traditional monarchist chivalric orders were illegal (and still are). This doesn't mean the latter weren't constantly cropping up and doing steady business, they just couldn't afford to call themselves "chivalric" or give the appearance of such in public while on French soil. They had to resort to more creative classifications. Of course, in Spain, Portugal, and even tiny Andorra, they could get as "ornate" as they wanted to.

TCP

Thanks Tim, quite sincerely I fully accept my ignorance in this matter. As for this being of "little interest", personally I haven't got the necessary background information and knowledge of such chivalric ideology to bear judgement. Not from disinterest but partially through a majority of source materials being in French and to be embarrassingly honest the other areas of this story regarding hidden treasure and esoteric mysteries have a more instant lure. Obviously this isn't the best course of action, as without the necessary background as you say this is what causes the "great hamster wheel" to continue. So guilty as charged on that count
However, I am more than happy to learn and to "research" myself but a helping hand in the right direction is always appreciated. This topic, as I said above, is something that's ( at least to me ) a minefield of other researchers political and religious opinionated views. Who to believe? The POS's own cryptic material, the government records / police reports on their activities, third-party authors adaptations with their own agenda or supposed "inner circle" members such as Chaumeil etc.

Why are the Traditional monarchist chivalric orders illegal in France but not in "Spain, Portugal, and even tiny Andorra" ? Am I correct in thinking that this comes from The Revolution and the suppression of the old European Nobility in France, therefore to forward these ideals as you say "They had to resort to more creative classifications." ?
Please pardon my incompetence and as mentioned, any trusted sources will be greatly valued.
Regards
Nic

Hi Roger,

Thanks for the reply.

Roger wrote:



Is it possible for an Anglophone based in Ireland to do that? Can these papers be found online?

Roger wrote:



I know you want me to do the digging myself, but I’ll go ahead and ask anyway because I’m sure you’ll recall that I have brought this up before. If the PoS was meant to embarrass the Mayor, was the PoS political right from the outset, or was the attempt to embarrass motivated by something else? This is what I was trying to understand when I asked, some months back, about the political orientation of the Mayor and his party. [Unfortunately I think the thread got led off about condoms and Dolly the Sheep!] If I recall, Roger wrote that the Deputy Mayor [Jean Deffaugt] was ‘a gentleman of the old school’. I know that this turn of phrase has widespread use but I found it interesting that in France during this particular period it was sometimes used (I think) to describe loyal ‘Vichyites’. Didn’t Deffaugt distinguish himself by saving the lives of a number of Jewish children from Nazi thugs based in the area?

Was the Mayor Left, Right, or Centrist, and/or Republican or Monarchist, and/or secularist or traditionalist?

Or more to the point, what was the political orientation of M. Maitret?

Any crumbs from my more learned colleagues are always greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Spartacus

Hi Nic,

Nic wrote:



This is a difficult one. Tim, Seeker, and I had a to-and-fro about this very subject not so long ago, although much of our discussion also took into account Plantard’s pre-war and wartime activities. For me personally, I don’t believe that Plantard moved too far from his earlier Rightist posturing. As I’ve stated before, I think that ‘his Merovingian and St Clair claims’ were connected to his ‘traditionalist Roman Catholic roots’ in a particular and specific way, and were created to serve a particular Rightist agenda.

Nic wrote:



IMHO there is little that is open to interpretation. Plantard sent a letter to Marshal Pétain denouncing a Jewish-Masonic plot to destroy France, and offered the services of himself and one hundred ‘good men’ to fight the ‘good fight’. He was also heavily involved Alpha Galates and Vaincre, both of which seemed, IMHO at least, to be decidedly anti-Semitic and anti-Masonic.

However, others (such as Seeker, I think) have argued that perhaps both Alpha Galates and Vaincre, were only pretending to be anti-Semitic, to ‘fit in with the Nazi Jones’ so-to-speak, or were even really part of the Resistance. Others (such as Tim, I think) are inclined to dismiss any earlier anti-Semitism as simply typical of the period, and believe that Plantard changed his opinions later in life, allowing him to work with Jews and even claim descent from the Jewish tribe of Benjamin and the House of David.

The link above is IMHO very interesting in that all the important themes that are IMHO crucial to the ‘reality’ behind this saga are mentioned.

It is worth noting that IMHO everything that HWMNBN writes must by understood in a certain way. HWMNBN hates Plantard and the Priory of Sion both fanatically and obsessively and everything that she/he writes comes from this primary drive. HWMNBN also changes her/his documents without warning when she/he realises that she/he has been writing nonsense. She/He then tries to shoehorn her/his previous claims into the new scheme of things, without ever admitting that she/he was wrong originally, whilst also devoutly sticking to her/his one overarching theme (that Plantard and the Priory SUCK and anyone who doesn’t totally acquiesce to this point of view is EVIL). That is why so much of what she/he writes, when all is said and done, makes no real sense.

Regards,

Spartacus

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the reply.

Tim wrote:



Thank you for that. I wasn’t aware that monarchist orders were illegal.


Tim wrote:



So do you believe that the Priory of Sion, as registered in 1956, was already viewed in that year, by Plantard at least, as a vehicle for his later monarchist claims?

And that therefore the Priory of Sion Boy Scout Troop claim supposedly made by André Bonhomme is inaccurate or misleading. Or did Bonhomme believe he was part of a Scout Troop, while Plantard had other plans?

How does the Priory’s apparent pre-occupation with council housing fit with either the Boy Scout scenario or the genuine Monarchist scheme scenario? (When I say genuine Monarchist scheme I mean a scheme in which Plantard actually had genuine monarchist plans. I think you know I don’t believe he actually ever had genuine monarchist pretensions!)

What scenarios can best explain the 1956 registration and subsequent behavior of the Priory of Sion, perhaps up to and including Plantard’s apparent participation in the CPS?

I’d genuinely be interested in hearing your opinion, and that of anyone else with an interest in the Priory of Sion?

Regards,

Spartacus

Thanks Spartacus,
That has helped loads, regarding the Pétain letter, Alpha Galates and Vaincre ( which I haven't read, anyone got scans or translations pretty please ? ). It is interesting that some think it could be a pretence but I would agree that IMO it is unlikely that someone would advertise their existence to the Natzis as a cover story.
With HWMNBN, I totally agree, that particular persons views come across quite clear as you say above.
Regards
Nic

All orders, with the exception of state orders of merit and pontifical awards, have been illegal in France since 1901. Recipients of legitimate foreign awards may apply for permission to wear them in public.




Yes.



Would you accept the idea of middle-aged men starting a Boy Scout troup for themselves as credible? Come now.



Why would a man invent a monarchist claim for himself if he actually had no such pretensions? And as far as the Priory's "apparent pre-occupation with council housing" goes, can we point to anything else in Plantard's résumé that dovetails with this alleged pre-occupation? And wouldn't you consider "Priory" to be a rather odd designation for a housing rights lobby? Let me repeat - chivalric orders were illegal in 1956 France just as they are today. Should someone have wanted to create one despite the law and legally register it as a charity, one would have to be somewhat creative in attesting to its nature and purpose.

TCP

Well, it's understandable, given the frequency of non-English source materials, as well as the fact that much of the background comes by word-of-mouth and having known some of the old codgers who played a role back in the day. There is plenty of esoteric action and hidden treasure (or rumors thereof) in the mix, but without knowing who the principals were and how they maneuvered, it probably wouldn't make much sense or be all that interesting.



That level of discernment is only achieved through years of experience, I'm afraid. There's no hard-and-fast rule or template. I tend to start with looking at what individuals with stories to tell have to gain or lose, that's usually a reliable fulcrum.



It didn't come to pass all in one fell swoop. Chivalric orders, noble titles, heraldry, and anything having to do with feudalism were abolished in 1790. They didn't remain gone for long as Napoleon created new nobility and chivalric institutions, then the Bourbon Restauration in 1814 brought back the old aristos (under a new legal framework) and the old ordres du roi. The latter were finally abolished in 1830 when the legitimate king was chased out and replaced by the Duke of Orléans (Louis-Phillippe, roi des Français rather than the traditional roi de France et Navarre). By 1901 the law was changed to forbid private orders of chivalry and so the law remains today. The "creative classifications" I refer to are charities and lay confraternities, particularly those with ties to shady episcopi vagantes.

If you're interested in web sources, François Velde has a very good website called Heraldica which covers the topic, as well as Guy Stair Sainty's websites.

TCP

Thanks Tim, I understand that there is no "quick fix" to becoming more familiar with the intricacies of the PdS story. Especially when such a story covers the social, religious and political Histoire de France, with a post world war climate thrown in for good measure

Bookmarked for reading and thanks for the input it is helpful .
Regards
Nic

Hi Tim,

Tim asked:



As I’ve said on numerous occasions I don’t find the claim credible. That’s why I keep banging on about it. There is so much contradiction associated with the earliest incarnation of the PoS that I thought it might be worth teasing out some possible scenarios that make sense of these contradictions.

The PoS was registered as a supposedly apolitical traditionalist Catholic lay-order, supposedly with the long term aim of ‘renewing French society’, and the short term aim of building a priory on Mount Sion.

However, rather than pursue these lofty aims, it immediately set itself up as a localised political pressure group apparently acting in support of M. Maitret against the incumbent Mayor.

It focused on issues of council housing, at least as far as CIRCUIT is concerned.

The founding members used aliases and AFAIK only two of the four have ever been identified, not exactly typical of either a Scout Troop or the ‘average’ Catholic lay order!

One of those founding members, André Bonhomme, apparently later claimed that the PoS was nothing but a few friends ‘having fun’ with ‘Boy Scouts’.

AFAIK no one has ever interviewed anyone claiming to have been a member of the PoS Scout Troop.

I think it is worth asking a few questions.

Why Bonhomme (if he did) made the Scout claim at all?

Why not just say that he was part of a short lived traditionalist Catholic lay order that simply failed to achieve its short term aim at least (Plantard’s association with the CPS make dismissing the long term aim somewhat more problematic).

Why have the other founding members (if they exist) been so steadfastly reluctant to come forward?
Is this typical in the modern age, where people general jump at any claim to fame?

Was Bonhomme party to (as you believe) Plantard’s monarchist schemes?
Did he support them?
If so – why?

Tim asked:



Well, that’s the 64 million $ Sion question. I can think of a few reasons and one in particular that I think is most likely given subsequent events.

My main problem with the validity of the monarchist pretensions is the utter absurdity of the claim! Surely only idiots could take such a claim seriously?

Is there any evidence that Plantard had royalist fantasies in the 1950’s?

By the way, would you (or anyone else for that matter) happen to know the politics of M. Maitret or even the Annemasse Mayor circa 1956!

Regards,

Spartacus

I never realised that so many "Self-Styled Orders of Chivalry" existed. I have come across some of the fake Orders of St John before, and their intentions of taking your money in return for ceremony and a couple of medals has seemed quite clear. So many though, what a joke!

http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/s ... lfstyl.htm
http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/s ... lfsty1.htm

Good point Spartacus, are Jacques Theureau, Jules Tisser, or Suzanne Libre ( is this a pseudonym? ) supposed members of the PdS or just of Alpha Galates? Even though Paul Lecour was dead at the foundation of the PdS, did he and Plantard ever meet in person?
http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/es ... rdson4.htm
Regards
Nic

There now - if that really was their stated purpose it would make perfect sense to me, even if it was not their true intention.



So the question at hand is whether the founding members of the PoS gave a rat's ass about council housing, or had a dog in the fight between Maitret and the mayor, or if they simply saw an opportunity to call attention to themselves by taking a public position on a local issue.



So many of the Catholic lay orders springing up at that time were far from "average"...



Sounds risky. Having fun with Boy Scouts or like Boy Scouts?



It might have been nothing more than sarcasm on his part, or an unwillingness to reveal information that might cuase embarrassment.



Why indeed? Bonhomme's response casts considerable doubt on whether or not there was a serious purpose to the PoS. But if it's the case that it didn't, then I don't know what we're all doing here.



Plantard certainly jumped, and look what happened to him. I'm talking about the scathing exposure in the French press, not the unqualified fame he achieved in the Anglophone world after HBHG was published. Three decades had passed, maybe the other Boy Scouts grew up.



I suppose only Andre Bonhomme himself knows that.



Not something you're willing to discuss, I take it?



You don't understand the false honors "industry" of the '50s, '60s and '70s very well, I take it. Obscure and distant claims were hard to disprove in those days, and as a result, they sold very well. There were umpteen different "Byzantine emperors" peddling their wares, a passle of Hohenstaufens, Carolingians, Visigoth claimants to the Spanish throne, even "Cantabrians" and an Aztec emperor doing a steady business in titles and medals out of Andorra. The more obscure, the more distant - the better. They were just as simple to write off as a joke as they were to attest as genuine, depending on the audience. And, surprisingly, some of these even managed to secure "cordial relations" with genuine royals in exile (not because they were stupid, but because the business was lucrative).



Was he not signing himself "Chyren", aka the Grand Monarch at about the time the PoS was registered?



No idea, sorry.

TCP

Hello Sparticus
I'll throw my two cents or half cents in the pot
I go along with Seeker on this with my own version

My take is that Plantard was a double agent for the French government


De Gaulle traced a assassination attempt from right wing Algerians to Permindex of Switzerland and Brussels NATO

the fact that Plantard walks away from the suicide of Mitterands friend
is quite amazing ...it was quite a scandal

Hi Tim,

Spartacus wrote:



Tim replied:



It was their stated purpose as far as the 1956 registration documents were concerned. IMHO the traditionalist Catholic element is crucial to the whole affair, so these aims do make perfect sense. It is the subsequent events that seem contradictory, particularly with the stated aims registered in 1956.

Tim wrote:



You’ve summed that up excellently. IMHO they didn’t give a 'rat’s ass' about council housing, so that leaves the other two options as an either/or, or even both together. However I did dig up an odd reference to council housing in an associated Sion theme! Watch this space, but don't hold your breath...

Tim wrote:



A-ha…Perhaps great minds do think alike…

Tim wrote:



But what kind of information? Would acknowledgement of any possible involvement with Plantard’s false monarchist posturing really have been all that embarrassing after forty years and so much widespread exposure? Doesn’t his reticence and reluctance to be completely candid (if that is the case) suggest something a little more consequential than involvement in the ‘false’ honours industry four decades earlier?

Tim wrote:



Exactly my point. Plantard must have known that his own monarchist credentials were destined to be torn to shreds. That’s why I can’t easily accept that his posturing ever had any real royalist substance, even to him. My question was about the other originals. If they had simply ‘grown up’, why not just come forward later and say ‘Yep, Plantard was a royalist fantasist who had us fooled for awhile, but we copped on after a few months and told him to sling his hook’. Why the steadfast reluctance to became part of the circus, even as part of the scathing debunking crew?

Tim wrote:



I had planned to, but I’ve gotten cold feet somewhat, given the lack of interest in the thread. I thought there might be a few more opinions offered before I opened myself up to the inevitable scorn and ridicule!

Tim wrote:



I’ll certainly accept that. Can you suggest any decent English language books on the subject?

Tim wrote:



More than that - his registered alias on the PoS reg docs was Chyren. What I meant was – did his royalist posturing take a more specific form during the 50s?

Spartacus wrote:



Tim answered:



That’s a pity. It might allow a better understanding of the question you asked above regarding ‘whether the founding members of the PoS’ ‘had a dog in the fight between Maitret and the mayor’. Certainly the Mayor saw the PoS as essentially political right from the get-go! Unfortunately I am, as always, hampered by my poor French.

Regards,

Spartacus

Hi Lov,

Lov wrote:





(I’m sure he can answer for himself, but I don’t think Seeker believes Plantard was an agent of the French government. AFAIK Seeker believes that a branch of the Surrealist movement was the main driving force behind the Sion saga).

Plantard was an agent of which French government? And what was his function as a double agent? Who was he doubling against?

Lov wrote:





This is all a bit vague. Can you flesh out what you’re implying a little bit so I can understand what you mean? How do you think these things you’ve mentioned link into the 1956 registration of the Priory of Sion? I'm interested to hear your reasoning.

Regards,

Spartacus

In a 1989 issue of Vaincre,[15] Roger-Patrice Pelat was named as a Grand Master of the Priory of Sion. Pelat was a friend of the then-President of France François Mitterrand and center of a scandal involving French Prime Minister Pierre Bérégovoy. In October 1993, the judge investigating the Pelat scandal had Pierre Plantard's house searched. The search failed to find any documents related to Pelat.[16][17], but turned up a hoard of false documents, including some proclaiming Plantard the true king of France. Plantard admitted under oath he had fabricated everything, including Pelat's involvement with the Priory of Sion.[18][19] Plantard was threatened with legal action by the Pelat family and therefore disappeared to his house in southern France.

Plantard just walked away and retired after this

His cover was blown
just my opinion...that he walked away without any jail time ...is amazing
a deal was made

so that is my opinion he was a agent whose cover was blown...and Mitterand was spared from a terrible scandal while his friend supposed suicide took the wrap for everything

OK, and you're certain about this, correct? I've read so many strange claims over the years, none of which made sense to me, nor could I figure out how they could have registered themselves under such ludicrous terms.



Gee, can't wait... are we in danger of a whole new field of inquiry swallowing us whole?



Careful, some people will think we're orchestrating...



I think it would have been tremendously embarrassing, yes. Bonhomme wrote off the experience as just a bunch of grown-up kids having fun, all very innocent. Admitting involvement in fraudulent activity - illegal activity - even after forty years would have been very consequential. Plantard got into trouble with the law for selling rather expensive memberships in "esoteric" orders not long before the Priory's registration in 1956. How credible do you think Bonhomme would have sounded if he claimed he was hoodwinked?



Do you personally know many Frenchmen, Spartacus? That level of candor is not typical among the Gauls, I'm afraid. They don't readily admit to being fooled, especially by someone like Pierre Plantard who had been handily dissected in the French press before Bonhomme was interviewed. Now, had Bonhomme said something to the effect of the Priory having been a Catholic lay order created for a specific purpose and Plantard used it as a base to launch his own rather fantastic pretensions, that would have certainly been believable. But the inevitable next question would have been why the three others walked away from the venture, leaving Plantard with the name and corporate identity, instead of kicking him out? Why would they simply abandon their stated goal and their legally registered entity (for which they all bore fiduciary responsibility) because of one bad apple in their midst? They had as much right to the name as Plantard did. Also, if they suddenly came to realize that Plantard was using the Priory as a base for fraudulent and illegal activity, why did they not report him? For whatever reason, Bonhomme and the others extricated themselves from something that Plantard controlled, had "ownership" of, something that he could not be physically severed from nor could they themselves continue without him. And, let's face it - Plantard never built a priory on Mont Sion. Claiming that the Priory was just a bunch of goofy guys horsing around deflected many probing questions, some of which could have born legal consequences.

As for Plantard knowing that his monarchist credentials would eventually be torn to shreds, that's not a given. There was no internet then, no public fora such as this one, no way for aficionados to find each other easily and compare notes. One could waste years in libraries finding nothing and not knowing exactly what one was looking for. Unless one knew where the "watering holes" were, and if one was on good terms with the "herd" then one could feel confident that "pests" could be easily steered towards what one wanted them to see, and away from what one didn't want them to see. Back in those days people less talented than Plantard got away with murder - figuratively speaking, of course - simply by knowing the subtle art of obfuscation and having a few well-placed allies.



Ah, well - now you know how I feel most of the time!



'Tis yet to be written, I'm afraid. But when it is written, it will most likely be published in Spanish first.



That I don't know.



Do you have a source that can be translated?

TCP

TCP:

That's interesting, por qué?

Because the team making the most headway on fitting the pieces together are Spaniards.

TCP