“And he is there, dead” Part 1: A royal tomb for a monarchist priest

 

Saunière, the monarchist

Why would Saunière be interested in Perillos? For those solely focused on sacred geometry, gateways into other dimensions or a physical treasure, the answer will indeed be hard to come by.
Many if not most “popular” authors do not take into account one aspect that many “sceptics” on the affair do: that Saunière was an ardent royalist. To underline this fact: just arrived in Rennes-le-Château in 1885, he preached from the pulpit against the Republic; he received money from de Countess de Chambord, widow of a pretender to the French throne (Henry V), which he used to restore the church with. We also know that the Hautpoul family, the lords of Rennes-le-Château, were very close to this family too. These are attested facts, which some have extended beyond the provable. For example, we know that Saunière wrote letters to the “Banque Fritz Dörge” in Budapest. For some authors, such as Jean-Luc Robin, this is used to wonder whether or not this is further proof of a link between Saunière and the Habsburg, a trail he seems to favour, seeing he ends his book with speculation on the Habsburgs. At the moment, it is pure speculation, as we do not know the contents of these letters.
For the moment, let us be content with the knowledge that Saunière frequently invited aristocrats to his Villa Bethania, where they were wined and dined. The list is long and well-known, and in no need to be repeated here. In short: Saunière was a monarchist, courting the company of the aristocrats and perhaps even acting as a “medium” through which these nobles can convene.

The Priory

At the core of Priory of Sion is a “royal deposit”. What this is, has been variously interpreted, included by the likes of Pierre Plantard himself. In origin, the story is simple: various versions of a single story are deposited in the Bibliothèque Nationale, whereby the variation of the versions themselves are important and, in my opinion, forms part of missing elements not at the disposal of the people creating these “dossiers secrets” (see here – PDS 1).
But at the core of the public message is the existence of a “royal deposit”, which the Priory sometimes identifies as a “tomb”, and which they link with a “lost king”, which they identify with the Merovingian kings, which they then identify with Pierre Plantard, arguing that if the “lost tomb” is recovered, Pierre Plantard will be the legitimate ruler of France. It may seem a preposterous ambition and many have labelled Plantard delusional based on this material alone. It may seem to be, but perhaps only from the outside?
Still, for the moment, let us strip this account of some of its speculation, and merely retain that the Priory seem to be searching for a “royal deposit”, which could be a tomb; a royal tomb.

A royal deposit

Let us return to the time of Saunière and the time of de Chambord. Let us assume there is a “royal deposit” if not a “royal tomb” that is “lost”. Would Saunière be interested in this? In my opinion, the answer is a clear “yes”. He was a royalist and would thus have been interested in trying to restore the monarchy in France. If there was anything he could do to help, no doubt, he would try.

Henry V, Count de Chambord

One of the key questions is whether there is still “something” that could still turn the tide, at a time when the royalist cause seems forever lost? If so, could Saunière be aware of this? To answer the latter question: yes. We know he received money from de Chambord family himself. This transfer is not a stand-alone event. His private notes refer to him writing to “Carriere”, who is none other than “doctor Carriere”, who lived in nearby Limoux. Carriere was the doctor of the “royal family”, i.e. the Chambord family. Carriere is also a cousin of Lasserre, who is not only the man who will write a history about Notre-Dame-de-Marceille, but who is also an intimate friend of Henri Boudet, the priest of Rennes-les-Bains… who in turn is a friend of Saunière.

The “Count de Chambord” was married into the Habsbourg family. And it are the Habsbourgs that are linked with the Spear of Destiny. This artefact is in the possession of the Habsbourg family and is said to contain the Blood of Christ, as it is, in legend, the spear that pierced the side of Christ at the Cross. Legend has it that its owner will be able to direct the destiny of the world – if not end of the world and much ink has been written about the Spear’s influence on Adolf Hitler. We will merely retain the fact that Hitler was no more noble than a Plantard and that he could ascend to the highest rank of powers; so why not Plantard?

A royal tomb

Is there a “lost royal tomb” somewhere in France? The answer is “yes”. As to where, the answer is “Perillos”. We know this because of the “Courtade register”, written in the first half of the 17th century as preparation for the transfer of the Languedoc-Roussillon from the king of Aragon to the crown of France. While making this inventory, Courtade lists one parcel of land near Perillos, which he lists as a “royal tomb” and which is protected by specific laws that guarantee no-one will interfere with it. However, a century and a half later, the French Revolution will not only wipe out the monarchy, it also wipes out the “privileged position” of this parcel of land. Furthermore, it seems that its location is lost, the result of various factors, but mainly to do with the confusion that had been caused by the Revolution itself. A Revolution, we note, which also sees the priest of Rennes-le-Château, Antoine Bigou, flee France, to Spain, via Perillos. Finally, let us note that Courtade himself was a notary in Quillan and that one of his descendants would be priest of Brenac… and friend of Saunière.

A question

Let us bring together various elements, and see what outcome they provide. We know Saunière is a royalist, at a time when the royal cause is in a lost position. Saunière knows and is sponsored by the inner circle of the Chambord family. That family also has the Spear of Destiny in its possession, a relic linked with Jesus’ death and which is accompanied by a powerful legend, stating that whoever possesses it, will control the destiny of the world.
Another fact: Saunière leaves us a model, which identifies the “royal tomb” of Courtade as the “Tomb of Christ”. We thus need to ask whether Saunière searched for – and may have been paid by the Habsburgs to search for – a lost “royal deposit”, that could or would strengthen their cause. We also need to wonder whether de Chambord actually asked Saunière to find the “Tomb of Christ”, i.e. his body, which would of course be a most powerful relic, and which would sit in the same category, though excel, the Spear of Destiny already in their possession.
Of course, nothing says the “Tomb of Christ” does indeed hold the “body of Christ”, but Saunière was a seeker, who found the location, after it had become lost since the time of Courtade and Saunière may have been told a “doctored version” so that he would do his utmost to discover the location.

Bigou?

There is another inroad into this mystery, and that is that of Antoine Bigou. He is the chaplain and confessor of the Hautpoul family; he is the man who flees France for Spain via Perillos; he is the one who is said to have left “something” “somewhere” (the Priory believes it is the tombstone of the last Hautpoul in the cemetery itself), which Saunière then discovers.
What to make of the existence of a priest, Jean-Baptiste Bigou, priest of Sonnac, in the Limoux region. To quote Gerard Galtier: “Ce prêtre de la fin de XIXieme siècle, qui portrait le meme nom de famille que les abbés Jean Bigou et Antoine Bigou, anciens curés de Rennes-le-Château de 1736 à 1774 et de 1774 à 1790, écrivit divers ouvrages d’inspiration mellénarise dans lesquels il prédisait l’établisshement prochain du royaume de Jésus-Christ. […] Les titres en sont généralement très explicites : mentionnes par exemple ‘Avenir ou le Règne de Statan et du monde prochainement remplacé sur toute la terre par une domination indéfinie de Jésus-Christ et de l’Eglise (1887). » We note this person lives near Rennes-le-Château, in fact near Limoux, the « heartland » of this movement, at a time when Saunière lives in the area as well.

The wanderings of Dr. Courrent

Let us look into another individual, Dr. Paul Courrent, a friend of Henri Boudet. Courrent has left his traces in Rennes-les-Bains, where he lived at the time of Boudet, arriving there in 1895. The “garden” in the centre of the town still carries the name of this wealthy individual. Courrent not only knows Boudet (he is his doctor), he also knows Saunière and he acts as an occasional doctor. Courrent and Boudet have a lot in common, including membership in various local amateur scientist organisations. He wrote, including “L’Excursion faite au Bézu” and “Le Château du Bézu”.
Boudet died in 1915 and it is Courrent who is called in to see Saunière in January 1917 after his stroke, from which he will die shortly afterwards. Apparently, during the five days of his final struggle, Courrent is said to remain close to Saunière.

At the time, Courrent is 56 years old. Twelve years later, Courrent will retire to Embres-et-Castelmaure, where he will die much later, in 1952. We note that Embres-et-Castelmaure is a stone’s throw away from Durban, a favoured destination for Saunière, as well as Bigou on his way from Rennes-le-Château to Perillos and onwards to Spain.
Courrent writes a manuscript on the history of the lords of Durban, and lists how they become lords of Perillos (see here). This history of the lords of Durban is a genealogical treatise. But though it is known to be accurate, it is “unscientific” from the perspective that it does not list its sources. It is clear that Courrent’s document is but his personal adaptation of another work – but whose existence is presently unknown.

“A secret”

The story goes that Saunière, on his deathbed, imparted a major secret to the priest Riviere, who came to deliver the last rites. It is said that it left the man shaken, though if it did, it is clear it did not leave the permanent scar that some commentators have made it into. Furthermore, why would he trust a man who he did not really know? If he wanted to say something, would he not prefer to say it to a man he had known for many years, and whom was a trusted friend? Like Dr. Paul Courrent?
This is speculation, for sure, but we can also note the words of Marie Denarnaud, Saunière’s maid, who told Noel Corbu that she would tell him “a secret” that would make him a “rich man” – if not a “powerful man”. Officially, Denarnaud died without ever being able to pass on this “secret” to Corbu, who himself will die some years later, in a car accident just outside the monastery of Prouilhe, which, by an intriguing coincidence, was a site well-known to Saunière.
Saunière definitely was a rich man (richer than he was supposed to be) and it is clear he had a secret. Even if he did not tell Courrent this “secret”, it seems the good doctor went in search of it himself, perhaps following a hunch of his own. Furthermore, let us note that Courrent remained in the area for a further twelve years and that he and Marie may have “shared” certain information or discussed the secret. Long before Corbu’s arrival in the village, she may have been confiding to Courrent, if only because he may have been one of the few people around whom she could trust and who would understand.

De Chefdebien archives

One of the primary researchers who has looked into the history of Paul Courrent is Guy Patton. He repeats that Saunière’s brother Alfred worked for a time for de Chefdebien family as a preceptor, before being “chased” from this position. There are some allegations that he stole certain documents that belonged to the family archives. Alfred and his brother Berenger were close, so much so that after Alfred’s death, Alfred’s child (born after his death) spent time with his uncle Berenger. There are two components to this trail. One: according to Roger-Rene Dagobert, Alfred Saunière passed (the stolen) de Chefdebien documents to Saunière, who himself passed them to Dr Courrent, while he was attending to Sauniere on his deathbed in January 1917. The claim can obviously not be substantiated, but is “logical”.
The second component is verified. In 1939, the de Chefdebien family deposited their archives with the Archaeological and Historical Society of Narbonne, for further study. These were then passed on to Courrent, as is evidenced in meeting minutes from 1940. The minutes states that the documents also contained components of two other archives, namely of Pailhoux and Dagobert.
In 1952, Courrent dies, at the ripe age of 91. We can read, once again in meeting minutes, what happened next: “At a meeting of 3/02/1954, the Secretary indicated that the Chefdebien family had sought to reclaim the family archives bequeathed by Marie-Louise, who died at Narbonne in May 1939. The Commission was embarrassed since the precious archives had disappeared shortly after the death of Dr Courrent to whom they had been confided.” It is said that the documents are stolen from Courrent’s home, and a family member believes this occurred because of the (monetary) value of these documents. We can only wonder whether the documents also had a more “spiritual” value to someone interested in the story.
Patton notes that in 1953, Denarnaud herself died, and that in 1956, the publicity campaign around Rennes-le-Château commenced, as well as the foundation of the Priory of Sion, which in 1964 would begin to deposit the “Dossiers Secrets”. To this, we add that in the early 1960s, Plantard speaks to another priest from that era, Courtaly, who comes to takes the water of Rennes-les-Bains, and whom Plantard believes also received some documents from Saunière.

Epilogue: The Delmas document... but not placed at the end

The “Delmas document” is one of the more intriguing documents about the history of Rennes-les-Bains. Written in ancient French, in a handwriting that is difficult to read, it has posed certain challenges for those hoping to read it. The original was in the possession of the Société des Arts et Sciences de Carcassonne and was apparently donated to them by Paul Courrent, who received it from the society of Antiquarians, who themselves got it from Dr. Julia.
It was written in 1709 by Delmas, a priest who spent sixty years in his community. This was yet another document that was cherished by Plantard and co. Specifically, there is mention of a tomb, of a “Great Roman”, which brings to mind the writings of Nostradamus. This great roman, buried in Rennes-les-Bains, appears to be or is linked with “Pompelius Quartus”, often linked with “Pompeius” or “Pompey” the Great… a veritable “Great Roman”. This document also speaks of some of the Celtic tribes, such as the Tectosages, that are so dear to one of Delmas’ successors, Henri Boudet. Finally, we also note the presence of Notre-Dame-de-Marceille, on the outskirts of Limoux, which in origin was most likely a Roman villa and/or sanctuary. We thus end up with a scenario in which various people seem to be looking for “a royal tomb”, but with several possible locations, and several possible occupants: one near Rennes-les-Bains of a lost “great Roman”, and one in Perillos of a lost “great king”. One who is said to be able to restore the Kingdom of Christ on Earth? Indeed, in a theocracy, in which a divine king is installed who will rule in accordance with God’s Will (often by direct revelation), the ambitions of a priest and a royalist meet – and go perfectly hand in hand.

The benben of Heliopolis

Today, the idea of a theocracy seems strange. It occasionally pops up its head in several esoteric writings, such as material related to the “Order of the Solar Temple”, as well as a “Brotherhood of Heliopolis”, a secret society that existed in the 1920s in Paris and which has been linked with Fulcanelli, as well as Schwaller de Lubicz.
The concept of a theocracy needs, as mentioned, a “divine king” who will establish a “divine rule”, in accordance with God. The king is believed to be the direct representative on Earth of God, and furthermore has a “divine telephone line” to God. Today, this may seem bizarre, but in ancient Egypt, it was considered to be the sole role of the king: to rule in accordance with the “Nine Principles”, making sure that his actions were in accordance with the Will of God.
Little remains from that era, but what remains makes it clear that the establishment of this “divine rule” required certain powerful “relics”, which included the body of the king’s predecessor, as well as certain other artefacts, one of which was the so-called benben of Heliopolis, a sacred stone not unlike the Grail stone in the legend of Wolfram von Eschenbach. Before returning to ancient Egypt, however, let us make three final observations.
One: for anyone willing to lay claim to the throne of France in such an “ancient Egyptian mannerism”, he is in need of a body of his “predecessor”, which no doubt would be located in a tomb… such as a “lost royal tomb” of Perillos?
Second: anyone desiring to perform such a ritual, needs to know the ritual, and thus someone must have maintained the rituals, over time, so that the king can be crowned.
Third: the de Chefdebien family was instrumental in the creation of the rites of Memphis-Misraim, a type of “Egyptian-style masonry”, which originated in the 18th century. It seems logical to assume that some documents surrounding this may have been present in the de Chefdebien family… which seem to have found their way both to Alfred and Berenger Saunière, as well as Courrent.

next >>

Filip Coppens