From: Tim Carmain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, as Derek has claimed the Devi's Advocate role, I guess I'll call
myself the "fly in the ointment"... See below:
---Derek Hiemforth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Today, December 12, I had a few hours conversation with Roger-Rene'
Dagobert
> >de' Groucy. The direct and treu descendant of Dagobert II.
> [snip]
> >he is a true and recognized descendant of Dagobert
>
> Recognized by who? I thought the orthodox historical position was
> that DagobertII didn't have any heirs. On what grounds should we
> accept his claim to legitimacy as any more serious than Plantard's?
>From a genealogical standpoint, I might point out here that the
purported descendance of the Counts of Razes from Dagobert II has
never been substantiated and was unheard of before HBHG was published
(nor is it widely accepted in genealogical circles). We have nothing
but faith to go on here, and speaking for myself, I have no faith in
M. Plantard's or M. de Groucy's claims. I can say with a degree of
certainty (i.e. backed up with known and non-contradictory
genealogical sources) that the chart provided to Baigent, Leigh and
Lincoln (and rehashed by Gardner) by Henri Lobineau contains one
serious flaw. I'm referring to the chart called "The Merovingian
Dynasty - The Lost Kings" in HBHG. This wrongly identifies the
parents of Eustache I, Count of Boulogne (grandfather of Godfrey of
Bouillon) as Hugues de Plantard and Agnes of Jumieges; and further the
text indicates that Eustache was the adopted stepson of Ernicule,
Count of Boulogne, Agnes's second husband. Every tried-and-true
source I've consulted over the years refutes this "Boulogne-ey".
Eustache I was the son of Baudouin II of Boulogne and Adele of
Holland, and was the actual great-grandson of Ernicule. This is an
important point considering that the Plantard claim has their line
descending from an older brother of the above-named Hugues, thus
pre-empting the purported position of Eustache I and later of Godfrey
of Bouillon as the "primogenitus" Merovingian line. If Plantard's
co-opted genealogy has since been refuted as fraudulent (and to my
satisfaction, it has), then I certainly wouldn't put much stock in the
claims of M. de Groucy, who seems to be attempting to graft his
descent onto an earlier graft that didn't bear fruit. I also doubt
very seriously that Godfrey, in founding the Priory of Sion in 1090 or
1099 or whenever it was, did so thinking that his patrilineal descent
qualified him as the Merovingian (and thus Davidic) primogenitus; if
it was given any consideration at all, it would have been his
matrilineal line (through his mother Saint Ida) that qualified him.
Just a hunch on my part, but I believe that this is why the Templar
Order was founded in 1118 as an adjunct and visible branch of the PoS
- to continue the excavations for evidence of the Boulogne /Bouillon
claim after the death without direct heirs of Baudouin I, Godfrey's
younger brother. The older brother, Eustache III of Boulogne, didn't
get from Europe to Jerusalem in time to be crowned king, according to
Runciman. In his place, the knights elected his cousin Baudouin of
Edessa, who was not a blood descendant of Saint Ida and thus not the
"primogenitus". Eustache's daughter and heiress Mathilda was married
to Stephen of Blois, later King Stephen of England, a scion of the
House of Champagne; thus the intense interest of that family and it's
retainers to continue the excavations under the guise of the Templar
order without revealing the true intent and mission of the PoS (i.e.,
to put a Champagne with Boulogne ancestry on the throne of Jerusalem).
Unfortunately, by 1188, the Templars had revealed all to the Anjou
descendants of Baudouin II, who claimed the "miraculous" descent for
themselves. Hence the cutting of the elm at Gisors - a symbolic, yet
meaningful separation of the PoS "legitimists" who maintained the
Boulogne claim (which by then had passed to the House of Brabant) from
the Templars, who by that time had thrown in their lot with the Anjous.
Well, now I'm getting off on a completely different tangent. The
point I'm attempting to make is that Plantard, Lobineau, Baigent et
al, and now apparently de Groucy would have us believe that Godfrey of
Bouillon's Merovingian /Davidic claim came to him through his father's
purported descent from Dagobert II. Unfortunately, there is no
evidence beyond what was put out by Lobineau to even suggest that
Dagobert II had heirs, at least not any that can be substantiated from
other sources. While Godfrey's father certainly did have Merovingian
ancestors through several lines, so did his mother, Saint Ida - and
better ones at that.
In order to put Plantard at the forefront as the Merovingian
primogenitus, Lobineau must have known that it was Godfrey that he had
to supercede, not the Anjous or their descendants. Hence, the
fabricated parentage of Eustache I of Boulogne as the offspring of a
younger son of the previously unknown family of Plantard de St. Clair,
purported descendants of Dagobert II.
In the eyes of this genealogist, the attempt failed for Plantard, and
I don't see much hope for de Groucy either.
>
> 3. Sauniere (as far as I know) and Boudet (likewise) were not
associated
> with gold, ever. With as many people have researched the RLC
mystery for
> the last century, someone would have uncovered witnesses who saw
gold being
> exchanged, etc.
Excellent point - I would be very interested in knowing how de Groucy
explains Sauniere's conversion of raw gold into negotiable cash
without drawing attention to himself. Alchemical inversion of gold to
lead, perhaps?
Pommarede
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and
select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
