THE PRIEST, THE COWN PRINCE &
A MEROVINGIAN TREASURE AT
RENNES-LE-CHATEAU
INTRODUCTION
‘We can say without hesitation that there is a treasure hidden in an ancient necropolis..’
(Georges BOYERS, 1967)
Various publications posit that throughout history there has been a concerted effort to ‘cover-up’ the story of a legitimate Merovingian survival and there may be some truth to that. New evidence, however, shows that the story of the ‘Roi Perdu’, the ‘Lost King’ of the Merovingian line may be a tale based in fact and not merely the work of sensational novelistic claims. This new evidence, which is contained in a seventh century Parchment, will show that the Merovingian line was contained in Dagobert II and furthered in his descendants. The Parchment represents a rare artefact in this story as the Carolingian empire, which usurped the Merovingian dynasty, sought to bury the truth regarding the ‘Lost King’. In the intervening years, the secret of the survival of this ‘bloodline’ appears to have been kept by ancient families and various monasteries. The Parchment, believed to have been written by a relative of Dagobert II, may be part of that network of survival and as such shines a new historical light on what archives and medieval sources only hint at: the secrets of the Merovingian line.
The story of the hidden Merovingian line and its significance is important and is supported by a seventh century Parchment that has allegedly survived up until our own modern times.
A TALE OF TWO TREASURES
‘It is here that the mystery resides…’(Rene Descedailles, 1962)
Rennes-le-Château is a medieval castle and village situated in the Languedoc area of France. The turbulent history of the area is attested to by the scars on its landscape, and by the many ancient fortifications that remain. The village of Rennes itself came to modern fame in
the last 100 years. It began essentially when local rumours began to circulate about the existence of a hidden treasure. These rumours were not new. What was new was that a priest, Berenger Saunière, was said to have discovered a hidden treasure in his church. The priest then went on to acquire and spend vast sums of money and to decorate his church in a most
bizarre manner.
The rumours were taken up by a visiting ‘tourist’, who later made his home at Rennes-le-Chateau. His name was Noel Corbu. Corbu would be taken into the confidences of Marie Denarnaud, the lifelong confidante of Berenger Sauniere. She told Corbu that there was a ’great secret’ that she would one day divulge to him, a secret that would make him ’very rich’.
A second treasure story began to circulate in the 1950’s. The rumours concerning Sauniere were taken up by the now infamous Pierre Plantard. He added the Merovingian ‘Lost King’ story and since that date the story of Rennes-le-Chateau and its treasure & the Merovingian treasure have been inexorably connected.
In the 1960’s a local investigator concluded: ‘The treasure of Rennes does not exist, but the ‘secret’ of Rennes is real. And it is there that the mystery resides’. Just what is the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau and the Merovingians?
THE LOST KING
'The king is not as lost as all that. We may say he is forgotten, but he never ceased to exist…’(Pierre Plantard, 1967)
The ‘infamous’ attempt by Pierre Plantard to link the descendants of the Merovingian king Dagobert II with a ‘secret’ Merovingian line of legitimate royal succession, unjustly displaced by the Carolingian Monarchy, but continuing to this day, is said to be without any reliable historical justification. It is a myth, historians report, an historical fantasy associated with the ‘myth’ of Rennes-le-Chateau. What is more, the heresy that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had married and had a child, which later became the Merovingian line, is also without historical foundation.
In Pierre Plantards view, King Dagobert II’s heir was spirited away down to Rennes-le-Chateau at the time of his fathers assassination. Although medieval chroniclers do refer to a son of Dagobert II, historians assume that this heir died around the same time as his
father.
But how was any son of Dagobert II taken to Rennes-le-Chateau? And why there? What happened to his daughters? Was one of the treasures Sauniere found related to a Merovingian treasure at Rennes and the legend of the ‘Lost King’?
Some authors have suggested that the ‘Lost King’ legend relates to Dagobert II, or his son. Why is this? Why did Plantard say ‘if you know well the history of France, you will understand why there has been a revival of the Order of the Temple, with (the) great families of Merovingian origin’? What has the Order of the Temple to do with the Merovingians?
THE PRIORY OF SION
‘The Priory of Sion stems from the Razes and is only a more or less successor …of the
Company of the Blessed Sacrament founded in 1629 by Henri De Levis, theoretically dissolved in 1665, but of which some secret adepts were still in existence’
(Thomas Plantard, 1989)
This famous Plantard Priory of Sion seems to have taken up the cause of the disinherited Dagobert II, but who were they? A fabled secret society dating back to 1090? A medieval secret society continuing where others had left off? Or were they a modern incarnation, invented in 1956 by Pierre Plantard?
Plantard’s Priory is said to have a pedigree stretching back 1000 years, and perhaps even further. Historians suggest that this society can be anything from an influential behind the scenes ‘cabal’ to nothing more than a modern Rosicrucian type ’ludibrium’ fleeced onto a gullible public. Others allege it is nothing more than a grand hoax perpetrated by Plantard, and two of his associates, Philippe De Cherisey and Gerard De Sede. Its historical documentation has not been accepted as authentic by established historians.
Members of the Priory themselves claim that they exist to protect and preserve a secret involving the ’bloodline’ of Christ. The Knights Templar were its military arm. However, the group Plantard refer to was set up in 1956. They took as their inspiration the Sion which is found in Lorraine, and this may be nearer to the truth than people realise. Later, Plantards son, Thomas, alleged that the Priory stemmed out of the Razes and involved various families. These include names which crop up in the Rennes mystery frequently including that of the De Negri family, the Hautpouls, the Fleury, Rosset, Blanchefort, Joyeuse, Fouquet, Gonzague and De Levi. They all belonged to knightly orders, which were ostensibly Catholic. On deeper delving
they all seemed to be associated with heresies of one kind or another. Plantard had suggested that great Merovingian families were behind the Knights Templar, and behind all great heresies against the Church. Why would this be the case? Who were the Knights Templar?
Was there something about these Merovingian families which still rankled with them and which obliged them to agitate against the Church? What was so special about the Merovingians, if anything?
KINGS BY RIGHT OF BIRTH
‘This is why Monarchy ….. Was continued by divine right … an authority given by
God’ (source?)
The Merovingians were a dynasty of Frankish kings who ruled present day France and parts of Germany from the 5th to the 8th Centuries. They were sometimes referred to as the ‘Long Haired Kings’ as they wore their hair unusually long from that of their contemporaries. These Merovingians were said to have ‘ruled by divine right’, that is, the King ruled due to the ‘will of
God’ and not because of the will of his subjects, the aristocracy or any other outside authority. This concept was further evidenced in the practice of efforts to trace the genealogy of European kings to King David of the Old Testament, because David also ruled by ‘divine right’.
This same concept is found in Aryan and Egyptian civilisations.
When St Remi baptised King Clovis I a unique and special bond was established between the Merovingians and the Roman Catholic Church. But the Church shamelessly betrayed that pact in 750AD when they tacitly agreed to the removal of the Merovingian king Childeric III. Wallace-Hadrill has variously referred to the deposition of Childeric III as a coup d’etat, a violent removal, and a dismissal. The Merovingian king had lost his power because of this. But the Merovingians did not simply fade away; they were removed after a final desertion by the church,
engineered by the Carolingian Pippin III. Perhaps the best summation was made by Pope Gregory VII. Looking back on the actions of Zacharias, he observed that Childeric III had not been removed for any moral defects. Rather he - and by extension the Merovingian line - was deposed quod non erat utilis, “because he was not useful”. The Merovingians themselves had earned the gratitude of the Catholic church in the time of Clovis I, and both church and crown enjoyed a special relationship. The church had on the whole benefited from that Merovingian patronage. Without the approval of the church, no amount of secular support would have won Pippin the throne.
This historical betrayal of the Church still rankles Merovingian families today. Is this the source of the Merovingian agitation against the Church? Do they have something which allows these heresies to continue? Do the Merovingians indeed continue?
THE RELICS OF DAGOBERT II
‘At the heart of Manguins research was the conviction that the key of Stenay (took the form) of a Parchment in the feet of the reliquary at Mons’ (Louis Vazart, 1983)
Dagobert II was the King of Austrasie from 676AD TO 679AD. He was the son of Sigebert III and one of the kings that historians label ‘rois-fainéants’, ‘the do nothing kings’. The life of Dagobert II reads like a legendary tale. When his father died, Dagobert was kidnapped and smuggled out of France via a trail of various monasteries. He turns up in Ireland, and then later journeys to England. He marries and has children. With the help of Saint Wilfrid of York, Dagobert finally returns to his rightful kingdom of Austrasie and is proclaimed king. Three years later he is assassinated on the orders of the Mayor of the Palace.
A great cult later grew up around Dagobert. 100 years later the betrayal of the Merovingians by the Catholic church takes place. The dynasty which was placed in their stead was the Carolingians, and in 872AD the Carolingians for some reason attempted to locate the body of Dagobert II. Why this should be important to them is not stated. When they find the body, a council is called and to which the Archbishop of Reims, Hincmar attends. Dagobert II was canonised and Charles II built a church to house the remains of Dagobert II at Stenay.
Later, this church became the focus of a bitter struggle between two Merovingian families. Why?
By 1914, this struggle for the literal remains of Dagobert was still continuing. By now it revolved around the skull of Dagobert II. It had had a chequered history, once belonging to the monks at Orval. What was so important about the skull reliquary? The skull imagery of Dagobert II seems to have been romanticised in art work, being one of the central motifs used by Guercino and Poussin in their most famous paintings. De Cherisey asks ’Is it the skull of Dagobert II or Sigebert IV that the phrase ’et in arcadia ego’ refers to?’ Vazart has asserted
that the skull was once in the keeping of Jean de Habsburg who had been linked to Marie Denarnaud, the confidente of Berenger Sauniere. By the First World War the skull was kept in a Convent at Mons. A local priest of Stenay had tried to retrieve the reliquary back. His researches had come to the attention of the Crown Prince, who had tortured the local priest for his knowledge.
Just what was hidden and important about this reliquary? (see photo's at top of page for the reliquary images).
THE HOLY IRMINA
‘She retraced the assassination of her father Dagobert II, the sojourn of her half brother Sigebery IV at the monastery of Oeren, and his refuge …. In January 681 he is smuggled to Rhedae’ (source)
The Holy Irmina was, in tradition, said to have been the daughter of Dagobert II. But this assertion possibly rests on a mis-reading by scribes in the Middle Ages. If she is not a daughter of Dagobert II, then she is a daughter of Dagobert I. In yet other traditions, she is not a Merovingian, but an antecedent of the Carolingians, the family who usurped the Merovingian dynasty.
Irmina is strongly connected to the Saxon missionaries of England. She is closely allied to Willibrord, the most famous pupil of Saint Wilfrid. Saint Wilfrid had helped her father Dagobert II regain his rightful kingdom in France. It was, in fact, Saxon missionaries who seemed to have known and been aware of the coup against Sigebert III, and the kidnapping of Dagobert II. So it somehow seems right that Irmina should reward her Saxon friends with land after they rescued her father. A very famous charter by Irmina is the charter relating to the villa of Echternach, which she left Saint Willibrord.
Historians are confused over this charter. Although Irmina wrote this charter, a few years later, the Carolingian Pippin re-issues the charter, making no mention of Irmina, as if she had never existed. Why? Historians infer a complete schism between the Merovingians and the Carolingians. Why? It appears that some sort of cover up was taking place. Was it a Carolingian propaganda exercise? Why? This is important because of the document written by Irmina. This new document details how her father had been assassinated, and how her half brother, Sigebert IV had been rescued and through her managed to survive. Irmina had recorded all these events for posterity. It was this document coveted by various groups, and to which was placed in the
skull reliquary of Dagobert II himself.
Were the Carolingians then trying to preclude the survival of any Merovingian claimant to the throne of France? The throne that they had appropriated from the Merovingians after that final ’desertion’ by the Church?
THE EVIDENCE IN HISTORY
Seventh century politics in Europe is certainly a confusing period. Although the Roman Empire had gradually fallen, the remaining great senatorial families, as well as local
‘barbarian’ families had moved to fill the power vacuum which was created by the Empires collapse. The Church also had its own agenda, and wanted control of the land and its people.
Against this backdrop the wandering hermits and monks created the great monasteries of the Age. These monks visited the domains of one of the leading families of the times, that of Pippin, ancestor of the Carolingians. He was the head of this up and coming family. Being noble however, did not mean he had royal blood. He wanted to seize political power and control, and he also wanted to appropriate for himself the royalty that the Merovingians possessed. How do
you make yourself a king? Pippin embarked on a two pronged approach. First he was astute enough to realise that the relatively new religion of Christianity may have been an increasing power that he could manipulate. He therefore put all these monasteries that were appearing under his patronage and protection, making the monastery in question dependent on him as ’benefactor’. Pippins second approach was to begin a policy of marrying his descendants and other family members into the existing royalty. In other words, he tried to align Carolingian blood with that of the Merovingians. Thus, when Charlemagne called his twin sons Lothar and Ludwig (in 779AD) this was because he could claim Merovingian blood. Clothar and Ludwig were the Merovingian names of Chlotar and Clovis. These names were not used among the Carolingians prior to this, and it is inconceivable that Charlemagne could have used these names if he could not claim Merovingian blood.
As the Carolingians supplanted the Merovingians, what evidence survives that suggest the Merovingian cause was deliberately abandoned, and that a propaganda exercise was begun to refute the importance of these kings, and to ridicule their legacy?
Why would the Carolingians want to deny the importance and very existence of certain kings?
THE PRIEST AND THE CROWN PRNCE
‘I am the true Master of the Cross’ (Kaiser Wilhelm, 1914)
Did an heir of Dagobert II survive? Is this really attested to by the document written by the Holy Irmina?
In September 1914 the Crown Prince, Frederic Guillaume, ordered the arrest of the local priest of Stenay, Monsieur Manguin. Manguin was then ‘interrogated’ and in some accounts tortured. Because of the nature of the research undertaken by Father Manguin, it is safe to assume that he was tortured for his knowledge of the secret pertaining to Stenay. And this secret was related to Dagobert II. And somehow the Crown Prince knew about it. Once the Crown Prince had broken the SATOR square at Stenay he declared that he was the master of the Cross. Just what was all this about?
Monsieur Maguin had certainly been interested in the history of Stenay and especially the reliquary of Dagobert II. He had petitioned certain bishops (particularly the Bishop of Verdun) for the return of this relic. These events were occurring exactly as Sauniere, our priest of Rennes-le-Chateau was discovering his treasure. And in fact, the parchment Sauniere found, detailing a
treasure of Sion which belonged to Dagobert II may be related to the events taking place concurrently in Stenay.
Manguin had amassed a number of notes on this subject, and later, with the input of a Monsieur Rivart, the pair had undertaken excavation at the old site of the Priory of Saint Dagobert, which traced its origins back to the finding of Dagobert II’s body by the Carolingians. A number of artefacts were said to have been found, and later, Manguin became ‘convinced
‘ that the secret key of Stenay took the form of this Irmina Parchment'. Manguin had ascertained that the original parchment had been held by the monks at Orval. At the time of the Revolution the monks had secreted this Parchment, and other treasures, out of Orval to the ancient citadel of Montmedy.
This skull of Dagobert had resonance with Sauniere and another priest of the area, Henri Boudet. Boudet had found a skull in the landscape of Rennes-les-Bain that he had assumed was representing Jesus Christ, but in fact realised it was the head of Saint Dagobert! How could Boudet mistake a head of Christ for that of Dagobert and he being a priest as well? What is this continual reference to Merovingians and a Christ bloodline? Why does the secrets of Rennes
and Stenay seem to be held in the hands of the priests?
Manguin was eventually tortured to death. What did Manguin die for?
To be continued....
‘We can say without hesitation that there is a treasure hidden in an ancient necropolis..’
(Georges BOYERS, 1967)
Various publications posit that throughout history there has been a concerted effort to ‘cover-up’ the story of a legitimate Merovingian survival and there may be some truth to that. New evidence, however, shows that the story of the ‘Roi Perdu’, the ‘Lost King’ of the Merovingian line may be a tale based in fact and not merely the work of sensational novelistic claims. This new evidence, which is contained in a seventh century Parchment, will show that the Merovingian line was contained in Dagobert II and furthered in his descendants. The Parchment represents a rare artefact in this story as the Carolingian empire, which usurped the Merovingian dynasty, sought to bury the truth regarding the ‘Lost King’. In the intervening years, the secret of the survival of this ‘bloodline’ appears to have been kept by ancient families and various monasteries. The Parchment, believed to have been written by a relative of Dagobert II, may be part of that network of survival and as such shines a new historical light on what archives and medieval sources only hint at: the secrets of the Merovingian line.
The story of the hidden Merovingian line and its significance is important and is supported by a seventh century Parchment that has allegedly survived up until our own modern times.
A TALE OF TWO TREASURES
‘It is here that the mystery resides…’(Rene Descedailles, 1962)
Rennes-le-Château is a medieval castle and village situated in the Languedoc area of France. The turbulent history of the area is attested to by the scars on its landscape, and by the many ancient fortifications that remain. The village of Rennes itself came to modern fame in
the last 100 years. It began essentially when local rumours began to circulate about the existence of a hidden treasure. These rumours were not new. What was new was that a priest, Berenger Saunière, was said to have discovered a hidden treasure in his church. The priest then went on to acquire and spend vast sums of money and to decorate his church in a most
bizarre manner.
The rumours were taken up by a visiting ‘tourist’, who later made his home at Rennes-le-Chateau. His name was Noel Corbu. Corbu would be taken into the confidences of Marie Denarnaud, the lifelong confidante of Berenger Sauniere. She told Corbu that there was a ’great secret’ that she would one day divulge to him, a secret that would make him ’very rich’.
A second treasure story began to circulate in the 1950’s. The rumours concerning Sauniere were taken up by the now infamous Pierre Plantard. He added the Merovingian ‘Lost King’ story and since that date the story of Rennes-le-Chateau and its treasure & the Merovingian treasure have been inexorably connected.
In the 1960’s a local investigator concluded: ‘The treasure of Rennes does not exist, but the ‘secret’ of Rennes is real. And it is there that the mystery resides’. Just what is the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau and the Merovingians?
THE LOST KING
'The king is not as lost as all that. We may say he is forgotten, but he never ceased to exist…’(Pierre Plantard, 1967)
The ‘infamous’ attempt by Pierre Plantard to link the descendants of the Merovingian king Dagobert II with a ‘secret’ Merovingian line of legitimate royal succession, unjustly displaced by the Carolingian Monarchy, but continuing to this day, is said to be without any reliable historical justification. It is a myth, historians report, an historical fantasy associated with the ‘myth’ of Rennes-le-Chateau. What is more, the heresy that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had married and had a child, which later became the Merovingian line, is also without historical foundation.
In Pierre Plantards view, King Dagobert II’s heir was spirited away down to Rennes-le-Chateau at the time of his fathers assassination. Although medieval chroniclers do refer to a son of Dagobert II, historians assume that this heir died around the same time as his
father.
But how was any son of Dagobert II taken to Rennes-le-Chateau? And why there? What happened to his daughters? Was one of the treasures Sauniere found related to a Merovingian treasure at Rennes and the legend of the ‘Lost King’?
Some authors have suggested that the ‘Lost King’ legend relates to Dagobert II, or his son. Why is this? Why did Plantard say ‘if you know well the history of France, you will understand why there has been a revival of the Order of the Temple, with (the) great families of Merovingian origin’? What has the Order of the Temple to do with the Merovingians?
THE PRIORY OF SION
‘The Priory of Sion stems from the Razes and is only a more or less successor …of the
Company of the Blessed Sacrament founded in 1629 by Henri De Levis, theoretically dissolved in 1665, but of which some secret adepts were still in existence’
(Thomas Plantard, 1989)
This famous Plantard Priory of Sion seems to have taken up the cause of the disinherited Dagobert II, but who were they? A fabled secret society dating back to 1090? A medieval secret society continuing where others had left off? Or were they a modern incarnation, invented in 1956 by Pierre Plantard?
Plantard’s Priory is said to have a pedigree stretching back 1000 years, and perhaps even further. Historians suggest that this society can be anything from an influential behind the scenes ‘cabal’ to nothing more than a modern Rosicrucian type ’ludibrium’ fleeced onto a gullible public. Others allege it is nothing more than a grand hoax perpetrated by Plantard, and two of his associates, Philippe De Cherisey and Gerard De Sede. Its historical documentation has not been accepted as authentic by established historians.
Members of the Priory themselves claim that they exist to protect and preserve a secret involving the ’bloodline’ of Christ. The Knights Templar were its military arm. However, the group Plantard refer to was set up in 1956. They took as their inspiration the Sion which is found in Lorraine, and this may be nearer to the truth than people realise. Later, Plantards son, Thomas, alleged that the Priory stemmed out of the Razes and involved various families. These include names which crop up in the Rennes mystery frequently including that of the De Negri family, the Hautpouls, the Fleury, Rosset, Blanchefort, Joyeuse, Fouquet, Gonzague and De Levi. They all belonged to knightly orders, which were ostensibly Catholic. On deeper delving
they all seemed to be associated with heresies of one kind or another. Plantard had suggested that great Merovingian families were behind the Knights Templar, and behind all great heresies against the Church. Why would this be the case? Who were the Knights Templar?
Was there something about these Merovingian families which still rankled with them and which obliged them to agitate against the Church? What was so special about the Merovingians, if anything?
KINGS BY RIGHT OF BIRTH
‘This is why Monarchy ….. Was continued by divine right … an authority given by
God’ (source?)
The Merovingians were a dynasty of Frankish kings who ruled present day France and parts of Germany from the 5th to the 8th Centuries. They were sometimes referred to as the ‘Long Haired Kings’ as they wore their hair unusually long from that of their contemporaries. These Merovingians were said to have ‘ruled by divine right’, that is, the King ruled due to the ‘will of
God’ and not because of the will of his subjects, the aristocracy or any other outside authority. This concept was further evidenced in the practice of efforts to trace the genealogy of European kings to King David of the Old Testament, because David also ruled by ‘divine right’.
This same concept is found in Aryan and Egyptian civilisations.
When St Remi baptised King Clovis I a unique and special bond was established between the Merovingians and the Roman Catholic Church. But the Church shamelessly betrayed that pact in 750AD when they tacitly agreed to the removal of the Merovingian king Childeric III. Wallace-Hadrill has variously referred to the deposition of Childeric III as a coup d’etat, a violent removal, and a dismissal. The Merovingian king had lost his power because of this. But the Merovingians did not simply fade away; they were removed after a final desertion by the church,
engineered by the Carolingian Pippin III. Perhaps the best summation was made by Pope Gregory VII. Looking back on the actions of Zacharias, he observed that Childeric III had not been removed for any moral defects. Rather he - and by extension the Merovingian line - was deposed quod non erat utilis, “because he was not useful”. The Merovingians themselves had earned the gratitude of the Catholic church in the time of Clovis I, and both church and crown enjoyed a special relationship. The church had on the whole benefited from that Merovingian patronage. Without the approval of the church, no amount of secular support would have won Pippin the throne.
This historical betrayal of the Church still rankles Merovingian families today. Is this the source of the Merovingian agitation against the Church? Do they have something which allows these heresies to continue? Do the Merovingians indeed continue?
THE RELICS OF DAGOBERT II
‘At the heart of Manguins research was the conviction that the key of Stenay (took the form) of a Parchment in the feet of the reliquary at Mons’ (Louis Vazart, 1983)
Dagobert II was the King of Austrasie from 676AD TO 679AD. He was the son of Sigebert III and one of the kings that historians label ‘rois-fainéants’, ‘the do nothing kings’. The life of Dagobert II reads like a legendary tale. When his father died, Dagobert was kidnapped and smuggled out of France via a trail of various monasteries. He turns up in Ireland, and then later journeys to England. He marries and has children. With the help of Saint Wilfrid of York, Dagobert finally returns to his rightful kingdom of Austrasie and is proclaimed king. Three years later he is assassinated on the orders of the Mayor of the Palace.
A great cult later grew up around Dagobert. 100 years later the betrayal of the Merovingians by the Catholic church takes place. The dynasty which was placed in their stead was the Carolingians, and in 872AD the Carolingians for some reason attempted to locate the body of Dagobert II. Why this should be important to them is not stated. When they find the body, a council is called and to which the Archbishop of Reims, Hincmar attends. Dagobert II was canonised and Charles II built a church to house the remains of Dagobert II at Stenay.
Later, this church became the focus of a bitter struggle between two Merovingian families. Why?
By 1914, this struggle for the literal remains of Dagobert was still continuing. By now it revolved around the skull of Dagobert II. It had had a chequered history, once belonging to the monks at Orval. What was so important about the skull reliquary? The skull imagery of Dagobert II seems to have been romanticised in art work, being one of the central motifs used by Guercino and Poussin in their most famous paintings. De Cherisey asks ’Is it the skull of Dagobert II or Sigebert IV that the phrase ’et in arcadia ego’ refers to?’ Vazart has asserted
that the skull was once in the keeping of Jean de Habsburg who had been linked to Marie Denarnaud, the confidente of Berenger Sauniere. By the First World War the skull was kept in a Convent at Mons. A local priest of Stenay had tried to retrieve the reliquary back. His researches had come to the attention of the Crown Prince, who had tortured the local priest for his knowledge.
Just what was hidden and important about this reliquary? (see photo's at top of page for the reliquary images).
THE HOLY IRMINA
‘She retraced the assassination of her father Dagobert II, the sojourn of her half brother Sigebery IV at the monastery of Oeren, and his refuge …. In January 681 he is smuggled to Rhedae’ (source)
The Holy Irmina was, in tradition, said to have been the daughter of Dagobert II. But this assertion possibly rests on a mis-reading by scribes in the Middle Ages. If she is not a daughter of Dagobert II, then she is a daughter of Dagobert I. In yet other traditions, she is not a Merovingian, but an antecedent of the Carolingians, the family who usurped the Merovingian dynasty.
Irmina is strongly connected to the Saxon missionaries of England. She is closely allied to Willibrord, the most famous pupil of Saint Wilfrid. Saint Wilfrid had helped her father Dagobert II regain his rightful kingdom in France. It was, in fact, Saxon missionaries who seemed to have known and been aware of the coup against Sigebert III, and the kidnapping of Dagobert II. So it somehow seems right that Irmina should reward her Saxon friends with land after they rescued her father. A very famous charter by Irmina is the charter relating to the villa of Echternach, which she left Saint Willibrord.
Historians are confused over this charter. Although Irmina wrote this charter, a few years later, the Carolingian Pippin re-issues the charter, making no mention of Irmina, as if she had never existed. Why? Historians infer a complete schism between the Merovingians and the Carolingians. Why? It appears that some sort of cover up was taking place. Was it a Carolingian propaganda exercise? Why? This is important because of the document written by Irmina. This new document details how her father had been assassinated, and how her half brother, Sigebert IV had been rescued and through her managed to survive. Irmina had recorded all these events for posterity. It was this document coveted by various groups, and to which was placed in the
skull reliquary of Dagobert II himself.
Were the Carolingians then trying to preclude the survival of any Merovingian claimant to the throne of France? The throne that they had appropriated from the Merovingians after that final ’desertion’ by the Church?
THE EVIDENCE IN HISTORY
Seventh century politics in Europe is certainly a confusing period. Although the Roman Empire had gradually fallen, the remaining great senatorial families, as well as local
‘barbarian’ families had moved to fill the power vacuum which was created by the Empires collapse. The Church also had its own agenda, and wanted control of the land and its people.
Against this backdrop the wandering hermits and monks created the great monasteries of the Age. These monks visited the domains of one of the leading families of the times, that of Pippin, ancestor of the Carolingians. He was the head of this up and coming family. Being noble however, did not mean he had royal blood. He wanted to seize political power and control, and he also wanted to appropriate for himself the royalty that the Merovingians possessed. How do
you make yourself a king? Pippin embarked on a two pronged approach. First he was astute enough to realise that the relatively new religion of Christianity may have been an increasing power that he could manipulate. He therefore put all these monasteries that were appearing under his patronage and protection, making the monastery in question dependent on him as ’benefactor’. Pippins second approach was to begin a policy of marrying his descendants and other family members into the existing royalty. In other words, he tried to align Carolingian blood with that of the Merovingians. Thus, when Charlemagne called his twin sons Lothar and Ludwig (in 779AD) this was because he could claim Merovingian blood. Clothar and Ludwig were the Merovingian names of Chlotar and Clovis. These names were not used among the Carolingians prior to this, and it is inconceivable that Charlemagne could have used these names if he could not claim Merovingian blood.
As the Carolingians supplanted the Merovingians, what evidence survives that suggest the Merovingian cause was deliberately abandoned, and that a propaganda exercise was begun to refute the importance of these kings, and to ridicule their legacy?
Why would the Carolingians want to deny the importance and very existence of certain kings?
THE PRIEST AND THE CROWN PRNCE
‘I am the true Master of the Cross’ (Kaiser Wilhelm, 1914)
Did an heir of Dagobert II survive? Is this really attested to by the document written by the Holy Irmina?
In September 1914 the Crown Prince, Frederic Guillaume, ordered the arrest of the local priest of Stenay, Monsieur Manguin. Manguin was then ‘interrogated’ and in some accounts tortured. Because of the nature of the research undertaken by Father Manguin, it is safe to assume that he was tortured for his knowledge of the secret pertaining to Stenay. And this secret was related to Dagobert II. And somehow the Crown Prince knew about it. Once the Crown Prince had broken the SATOR square at Stenay he declared that he was the master of the Cross. Just what was all this about?
Monsieur Maguin had certainly been interested in the history of Stenay and especially the reliquary of Dagobert II. He had petitioned certain bishops (particularly the Bishop of Verdun) for the return of this relic. These events were occurring exactly as Sauniere, our priest of Rennes-le-Chateau was discovering his treasure. And in fact, the parchment Sauniere found, detailing a
treasure of Sion which belonged to Dagobert II may be related to the events taking place concurrently in Stenay.
Manguin had amassed a number of notes on this subject, and later, with the input of a Monsieur Rivart, the pair had undertaken excavation at the old site of the Priory of Saint Dagobert, which traced its origins back to the finding of Dagobert II’s body by the Carolingians. A number of artefacts were said to have been found, and later, Manguin became ‘convinced
‘ that the secret key of Stenay took the form of this Irmina Parchment'. Manguin had ascertained that the original parchment had been held by the monks at Orval. At the time of the Revolution the monks had secreted this Parchment, and other treasures, out of Orval to the ancient citadel of Montmedy.
This skull of Dagobert had resonance with Sauniere and another priest of the area, Henri Boudet. Boudet had found a skull in the landscape of Rennes-les-Bain that he had assumed was representing Jesus Christ, but in fact realised it was the head of Saint Dagobert! How could Boudet mistake a head of Christ for that of Dagobert and he being a priest as well? What is this continual reference to Merovingians and a Christ bloodline? Why does the secrets of Rennes
and Stenay seem to be held in the hands of the priests?
Manguin was eventually tortured to death. What did Manguin die for?
To be continued....