Talk:Rennes-le-Château

Older
Hi: Not a member of Wiki, but I believe this is just all crap. =-o0iikjnmbvfhrdvyhnbjikkkI would add my two cents on this article.

First, it seems a bit disingenuous if not downright WRONG to footnote many of the "facts" in this article to other wikipedia articles. Real lame, and with wikipedia being a questionable source anyway, does nothing to substantiate the facts as reported. I would suggest removing and or disallowing any "footnotes" that reference Wiki, and either replace them with footnotes to the original source, or dropping them entirely.

Second, one "fact" is footnoted "source; any genuine photograph of the sculpture of Mary Magdalen at front of church makes this obvious" COME ON- you are going to allow that piece of BS??? I would say drop it, or add in an image...

S**t like this is why the wiki cannot be trusted for much!

Erasing a whole page just to insert a few bibliographic references and make disparaging remarks is NOT appropriate. David.Monniaux 19:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The following text was moved from the article page: olivier 18:05, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * "Message from Paul Smith:


 * Guess what folks - none of the essential French books on Berenger Sauniere and Rennes-le-Chateau have ever been translated into English - and henceforth we have to put up with silly articles like this on Wikipedia - and it is no good re-writing the rubbish found on this particular page because the fantasies will, like a bad tooth, find their way back to this page again (Aardark from Wikipedia has taken offence to the facts about Sauniere and Rennes-le-Chateau).


 * The stories of Sauniere's "wealth" originate from the 1950s and are a plain myth. For example, Sauniere's entire estate was only valued at 15,000 Francs in 1913 by the Credit Foncier de France after he had asked it for a loan because he did not have enough money to even buy food (TIP: This is not a viewpoint but a fact).


 * This was not the first time that Sauniere had asked for a loan in order to eat. Sauniere lived in poverty for most of his life except for the period between 1896-1905 and we have the relevant paperwork to prove it - he was living from the selling of masses during those latter years and the paperwork for that exists as well (TIP: This is not a viewpoint but a fact).


 * Monsignor Billard, Sauniere's Bishop, was far more wealthier - he inherited over a million Francs in 1891 from a rich widow and he too, lived from selling masses and, like Sauniere was to be suspended from his sacerdotal duties over allegations relating to financial impropriety within the Church (TIP: This is not a viewpoint but a fact).


 * Paul Smith"

A few simple rules of Wikipedia - regarding "Paul Smith"'s changes of the article page:
 * discussions belong to the talk page, not to the article page
 * if you have some information to add or corrections to make to the article, you are welcome to make them
 * Wikipedia is aiming at being an encyclopedia, where articles are written following the Neutral Point Of View Rule
 * Anybody can make changes to articles. If you feel that the Neutral Point Of View Rule is not respected, you are more than welcome to make a change in order to make the article (more) neutral
 * If you want to tell more about yourself, the appropriate place to do so is your User page, not a Wikipedia article (reference to an earlier edit of "Paul Smith")
 * "Aardark from Wikipedia" is not an appropriate description, as no contributor is "from Wikipedia". ANYONE, including Paul Smith can contribute to Wikipedia as Aardark does
 * Thank you olivier 18:05, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the version of 22:15, Dec 5, 2004 by 80.202.171.147, and added a NPOV dispute warning. Please feel free to edit the article, but please follow the few rules of Wikipedia, which I have mentioned above. Thanks olivier 18:19, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Alas, the article on Rennes-le-Chateau as given in Wikipedia is pure pseudo-Jargon. The facts given by Paul Smith put substantial holes into the current online article and its VERY PREMISE. Hasn't anybody noticed this?

Sauniere was not rich and his fate was similar to the fate that befell his bishop before him in 1902...

Paul Smith


 * Sorry, I have been polite and it did not work. I am now protecting the article page. This talk page will be the place to resolve the dispute, since some users seem not to work collaboratively. Once things will have been discussed and a solution figured out, the page will be unprotected. olivier 18:56, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

This seems to happen every few months. I am certainly appreciative of Paul Smith's collection of English language documentation refuting the Plantard/Baigent/Lincoln/et al ideas about Rennes-le-Chateau and Sauniere. When I first read HBHG in the late 80s, I didn't need much convincing that it was all a bunch of nonsense. I recently collected the Wikipedia articles on this subject in a category, Priory of Sion hoax. Wikipedia does need to report what is included in books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail as well as the evidence against it. That doesn't mean it should uncritically accept what HBHG says, but the information should be there. My thought is that we also create a new article, e.g. Evidence against the Priory of Sion hoax, where extensive information on the problems with the "theory" could be provided. With the popularity of The Da Vinci Code, it seems appropriate to me that Wikipedia include this sort of coverage. However, I don't think Wikipedia should be a place for polemics, either for or against any viewpoint. Also, I would ask that all contributors try to adhere to the Wikipedia collaborative model. Gwimpey 20:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I am reverting this talk page to the following edit: 04:10, Dec 7, 2004 Gwimpey. Some user(s) had replaced it with the following posting: olivier 17:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Message from Paul Smith:


 * Gimpey is just slow, dull and boring - he's a real jerk. But what do you expect from people who have never been to France to see what a load of rubbish the whole subject matter is regarded as over there...


 * Carry on promoting the Link to http://www.priory- of-sion.com


 * The website is being revised to deal with the **** found here.


 * That's where the demolition job exists on the Lie that Wikipedia refuses to expose.


 * See also:
 * http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/strange-world.html

Note to the poster of the above: whatever the value of your arguments, you will not gain any credibility if you do not follow the simple collaborative rules of Wikipedia. I invite you to read Welcome, newcomers carefully and follow them. At the very least, it is NOT acceptable to insult others. olivier 17:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Paul for pointing out the link to the Skeptical Inquirer article (the csicop.org link above). It should be added to the external links section of the article when the article is unprotected. I am a subscriber to the magazine, but I had not thought to link the article here. Sorry Paul thinks I'm slow, dull, and boring. I'll try to be faster, sharper, and more exciting from now on. Gwimpey 05:15, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have added the external link to the article page, as there seems to be a concensus about including this one. olivier 06:54, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks to olivier and Gwimpey for their assistance on this. Is the above the first time that "Paul Smith" has quoted a source?  If so, it may be helpful to quote that source, and not Mr. Smith himself, who apparently doesn't quite get the fact that force of argument and shining personality does not substitute for citation of accepted sources in a reference work.  As an example, Paul Smith is in fact an anthropomorphic otter from a pristine river in British Columbia. (TIP: This is not a viewpoint but a fact) - Scooter 23:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I edited the article in order to change the category, per Categories for deletion. There is a cleanup in progress to uniformly establish "cities, etc. in" instead of "cities, etc. of". I figured that the change of one preposition would not be controversial. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 23:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article could use more information. The facts may be disputed, but they're still part of the story. Where's "noon blue apples" and the story of the pillars? A better explanation of the Father's sudden wealth (which may be disputed but still bears a mention) is in order.

Also, it is not a foregone conclusion that Plantard manufactured the Priory of Sion. It was an actual historical organization, although it may have been small, short-lived, and not connected with the Knights Templar (so the skeptics would have us believe). This article should not definitively state that Plantard manufactured the Priory, because this has not been proven (and probably cannot be).

As usual, when skeptics protest too much, one ought to be skeptical of them. -abbatangelo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.174.43.36 (talk • contribs) October 9, 2005.

Hello, I lived my first 8( great) years in Rennes Le chateau. I'm currently writing a section about the excavations (officials and non-official) that took place to find the [disputed] treasure in Rennes le Chateau. My father took part in this excavations and most of them where conducted under his command. I will also talk about the `dall` that was found in the church as well as the parchments found in the devil's eyes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adrien Chatillon (talk • contribs) February 21, 2006.

Parchments?
Parchments in the devil's eyes? How have I not heard of this before?

ψΩφω —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rex Regis (talk • contribs) April 13, 2006.
 * Added new material about the parchments. This information could be the heart of the whole "Mystery". Donach (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Extracted the para re deciphering the parchment codes into its own sub-section, in order to extricate it from the material surrounding it in the old paragraph. While there is indeed a lot of conjecture about this village, and its treasure, the matter raised by the deciphering is of a very different nature. It is to its advantage to be separated from the folklore. Donach (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Extended the list of supporting material in footnote 31. Donach (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality in question
I agree - having spent years studying the subject and having lived in the village I was appalled to see my small additions completely deleted within a day. It's clear someone with an agenda against a balanced presentation is zealously guarding this page. Perhaps the Catholic church - now there's a conspiracy. Lets see if the page controller censors us again as material now replaced. 25 June 2007
 * The second matter raised by Henry Lincoln, and re-investigated by Andrews and Schellenberger, is certainly undesirable to the Establishment. Donach (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Added further citations and details re the parchments, and Mt Cardou. Donach (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Added another detail concerning the Knights Templar. Critics earlier on the page will be interested to know that several key documents are available now in English. It even includes purchase agreements of these chateaux by the Templars, according to the citation given. Donach (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This entire page should have it's neutrality in question. Whoever contributed information on the story of Father Sanuiere clearly didn't think too much of it. This is one of the most biased pages I have ever read on Wikipedia that wasn't marked for its bias. Somebody who knows more about the story should provide it to this page and clean it up so that when people come here they don't just taken the negative opinion that this page currently gives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.166.85 (talk • contribs) May 24, 2006


 * And yet, strangely, you don't seem to be able to say what the bias is. Paul B 00:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think, very clearly, the bias is in fact the entire article which is not so subtlely guided towards dubunking the mystery, which only presents one side of the subject. Highlighting the clear evidence related to the subject is admirable, but choosing to do little in expounding further on the legend and history surrounding the site only makes the subject fall flat. Both sides should be equally represented, with major (if sometimes outlandish) theories cited to add an interesting counter-point. --Yourwhitenoise 19:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article represents the clear consensus of historians. Both 'sides' do not get equal representation according to WP policy if there is a scholarly consensus for one side. Paul B 08:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, interesting entry. Just wanted to say that it seems that MUCH of the material is taken from another site (www.essential-architecture.com/ DAVINCI/DV23.htm). Seems the right thing to do is either rewrite or at least give credit where it's due. The first author obviously did something right, so he'd probably appreciate a tip of the hat. Even if it's in the Notes or Talk or something. Besides that, nicely done page. Perhaps add a picture of the castle? (I'm totally newbie or I'd do it myself) :) Trai dep 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't! The material on that website is in fact copied from this one. Paul B 08:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't need to read more than the first few lines to see that the author is incapable of presenting the bare facts and leaving their opinions out of it so that others may draw their own conclusions. While I agree that many large assumptions have been made based on circumstancial evidence, this is anything but a proven hoax. That claim is based on opinion, not fact. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia and should have been removed long before now. I come here for information, not the false claims of others who bend things to fit what they want to believe. I find it an insult to my intelligence to be told what to believe. Someone needs to get this garbage off of here and rewrite it to present the bare facts and present opinions as opinions, not as fact. I don't know my way around here well enough yet to start rewriting things. I'm sure that someone out there could do an excellent job on it. They certainly couldn't do worse. Darcy 01:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Using this article as product propaganda
I have removed a blatant attempt to publicise a product being sold on Amazon, a faked ancient manuscript. This seriously does not belong in an article about a village. Astonishing that this overt and outrageous attempt to use Wikipedia as a self-promoting publicity machine wasn't removed earlier...Almirena 05:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting an inaccurate claim
I deleted the claim in the article that Sauniere "kept no clear records" as well as the link since this is highly inaccurate - Sauniere kept very detailed records of his selling of masses activites - demonstrated with presented documentation in a book by Jean-Jacques Bedu - the priest kept names and addresses of journals, other priests and individuals that he sent his ads to. The evidence for this is overwhelming and the actual primary documentation itself is in the possession of Antoine Captier, who lives in Carcassonne and who runs the Sauniere Museum in the village of Rennes-le-Chateau. Of course, Sauniere did not produce his selling of masses records during a Trial where he vehemently denied that he obtained all his wealth from the selling of masses - and he instead produced a bogus "List of Donors" where he tried to convey to his superiors that he acquired his wealth through both moral and legal means.

wfgh66 —Preceding comment was added at 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Bedu is a good reference - one could only wish that Clare and Antoine Captier would publish all of the material they have, rather than keep it largely private and (as I have been informed) charge heavily for the privilege of viewing it. However, at least the evidence exists and is verifiable. --Almirena 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bedu's sources were restricted owing to the fact that Clare and Antoine Captier's archives were incomplete - that is, they only possessed Sauniere's accounts relating to the period 1893-1897 (according to Johan Netchacovitch). The archives relating to the period 1897-1915 have been recently rediscovered on Microfilm in a French library by a believer in the myth who believes that the pillar in Sauniere's church was "hollow" - Laurent 'Octonovo' Bucholtzer, who will pour all sorts of mystification over the evidence of Sauniere's Account Books. His forthcoming book will be called 'Rennes-le-Château, l'affaire paradoxale' and will be published by Philippe Marlin - who preferred to publish Frank Daffos instead of Jean-Luc Chaumeil (who has been marginalised and anathematised by the French Believers in the Myth). The Sauniere accounts relating to the years 1915-1917 were published by Pierre Jarnac without any commentary. When Rene Descadeillas researched for his book "Mythologie du Tresor de Rennes" during the 1970s he had full access to the whole archive of Sauniere's account books, which was then fully complete and in the sole possession of Clare and Antoine Captier.Wfgh66 09:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable cite
"An International spiritual ascension community has formed around what is regarded by the "new age" community as a strong energy centre in the Rennes Le Chateau region causing real estate prices to have sky rocketed in recent years" -- Cite is given as "this is common knowledge in Southern France - the trend can be verified with a cursory reading of net postings" --- '''This is an absolutely classic example of an unacceptable style of cite. "Everybody knows, look it up for yourself" is not the way we should be doing cites''' (and "net postings" are one of the least reliable sources). -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles I've ever seen on wikipedia. Total violation of NPOV. Utter garbage.77Mike77 (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-written evidence
Should television program "60 Minutes" be usable as a cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.102.16 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Terribilis est locus iste
This is a common inscription found in many Roman Catholic Churches around the world. There is nothing to theorise about this inscription and I am susprised that the believers in the Myth are still chasing this wild goose. It is taken from a Common Decication of a Church. Sauniere's Church was re-dedicated in 1897 following the completion of his restorations and decorations. What mystery can there possibly be surrounding this mundane event? Wfgh66 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.ballyroanparish.ie/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=16

Ballyroan Parish, Dublin, Ireland Parish History “This is a place of awe; this is God's house, the gate of Heaven, and it shall be called the royal court of God” [Taken from the Entrance Antiphon for the dedication of a church] Wfgh66 (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Joerenne (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code link
"This torch was then picked up and carried further in 2003 in Dan Brown's bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code, though Brown's book never mentioned Rennes-le-Château by name."

True, but the character who dies at the beginning, the curator of the Louvre museum, is called Saunière. Coincidence? ;) When I read the book and saw the name Saunière, I thought there would be a reference to Rennes-le-Château and l'abbé Saunière later on in the story, but there wasn't. Just that name. Not that it matters, but if this article is going to mention The Da Vinci Code, might as well mention the Saunière character, even if the novel "never mentions Rennes-le-Château by name". Just a thought. Onaryc (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Foucault's Pendulum reference
If I'm not mistaken Rennes-le-Château was also mentioned at length in the italian author Umberto Eco's Novel "Foucault's Pendulum"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_Pendulum Foucault's Pendulum

Sauniere and Franz Joseph
I remember reading somewhere that the whole saga stems from the vanity of a Hapsburg prince and Sauniere's taking money from him to 'find proof' which Sauniere alleged was at Rennes-le-Château to validate a fanciful account of Prince Franz Joseph's lineage, as at some time in the 1800's Franz Joseph was alleged to of been asked to consider becoming King of a new French Monarchy. Does anyone else remember such a source as it does seem to account for all the origin 'stories' that Rennes-le-Château held some mysterious treasure. It might be worthwhile finding that source to expand further on the history of the Sauniere story.  Petedavo talkcontributions  02:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the pillar
I actually saw the pillar on display tipped over and examined. There is no secret hiding place. I'd put this in the article, but since I'm the source, I don't think I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.213.11 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A question of plausibility
There is reasonable evidence of Saunière having been involved with selling masses etc (and possibly other activities of a similar nature).

If he #had# found some documents of the nature alleged - is it more likely that the Vatican/the RC hierarchy would have (a) paid him off repeatedly or (b) claimed that he was suffering from heretical delusions and had forged supposedly ancient documents to 'prove' his claim'? (He may well have found some antiquarian documents, possibly of historical interest, but there seems to be a discontinuity with the claims that are made.) Jackiespeel (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

New sources not mentioned in the article:

I am surprised that no references to either 1) the alpheus.org site 2) the discussions between Robert Richardson and his critic regarding Pierre Plantard are not referenced or linked and 3) the book by Robert Richardson (which I so rare, I am beginning to wonder if it really exists) referenced at the end of the principal article is not referenced. I will post them here once I have some time (sigh) to re-discover them.  They are all on the alpheus.org site, provided that still exists.

Mont Cardou section?
Is there a reason for this article to have a subsection named "Mont Cardou"? The mountain is not mentioned in any other section of the page, and doesn't really have a lot to do with the Rennes-le-Chateau as a commune at all. I mean, I know it is tied to the alleged mystery and all, but the page "Pech-le-Cardou" on other pages refer here, which is just silly. Mansize010 (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It has a mention elsewhere now : and it is particularly relevant !! This may well be what it is really all about. Donach (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Added a photo of site "Lampos" on Mt Cardou, together with expanded details and citations. Donach (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleted the photo of Mt Cardou because of my lack of knowledge re copyright issues. What is the understanding re using and citing a figure/photo/diagram from a published work? It appears that the rules are different to those for using text and information from such works - where citation seems to suffice ! Please advise .... Donach (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I can add a personal photo of the mountain, no problem, but it is now even more ridiculous. Mont Cardou is in the commune of Rennes-les-Bains, not Rennes-le-Chateau, and should first and foremost be described there as a prominent geographical feature. All pages should refer there as well.Mansize010 (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Deciphering the parchments - "Chateaux held by Templars"?
This article seems to be getting worse. There is no known evidence as we understand it today that Templars held "chateaux" in the area, if there is, someone should make correct references. They did have other property, like the church in Campagne, of course, but how it is related I cannot fathom. The importance of the castrum of Rennes itself was minor at best during Templar days, it was held by minor Occitan nobility from 1.000 up until the crusade, when it was abandoned after the fall of Termes and likely occupied by French crusaders. The chateau that resides there today is from later medieval times after French improvements had been made, and thus is particularly non-Templar as it largely postdates the Templar Order itself. Coustaussa is actually named as a minor castrum in the 13th century, but also abandoned by its Occitan nobles and people after the fall of Termes and occupied by the French since. Two other Chateaus that are falsely linked to Templars nearby come to mind; the thing at Blanchefort and the thing marked on the hiking map as "Chateau du Templiers". First of all, there is no known evidence that the remains of what we now call Blanchefort are linked to the Templars, nor what exactly it was supposed to be. Given its size and location, it was probably a simple military outpost. Second, the chateau marked as "du Templiers" at St-Just-et-le-Bézu was never a Templar chateau; this is a local legend only. It was actually the castrum and keep of "Albedun" or "Albezu", relatively large for its day. It had a garrison of about 200 knights, a small army for that time. It was never besieged during the Albigensian Crusade, but it seems to have capitulated twice. There is concrete evidence that one of the senior lords of Albedun (most lords were called Bernard de Sermon without suffix, so it is hard to discriminate between them), donated some of his property to the Templars and actually joined the order too. Afterwards, the only documented link between the Templars and the Sermons are nasty quarrels over property, I believe mostly in Espéraza. As an ironic sidenote, Albedun was likely actively harboring Cathars during the Albigensian crusade, and so one of the few true "Cathar castles" is now falsely named "Chateau du Templiers". Mansize010 (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent removals by Dickie birdie
The content is sourced. Wikipedia is about verifiability not "truth". Do not remove that information again. MSJapan (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please show the sources if the content is sourced Dickie birdie (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Schellenberger book is already cited in there twice. What's the issue? MSJapan (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Andrews' and Schellenberger's book was discredited. Their book refers to bogus historical material planted by Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey in the Bibliotheque Nationale during the 1960s, all of it agenda-driven aiming to show that Pierre Plantard was descended from a Merovingian king. Okay, it does not matter if it's true or not, but the whole background story of Plantard and de Cherisey's actions, given in other books and explained as being a hoax, needs to be added into the article. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, then add it in instead, from all the sources. We've already got Priory of Sion to draw on. MSJapan (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Andrews and Schellenberger re-interpreted the Plantard and de Cherisey material to fit-in with their claim that the remains of Jesus Christ were buried on Mount Cardou. All lifted out of context. The whole corpus of Plantard and de Cherisey's material never mentions Jesus Christ at all. It's all about Plantard being descended from a Merovingian king. Dickie birdie (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

So, if there is an available source stating that conclusion, why can't we just say "Andrews and Schellenberger, in their book, reinterpreted the material..." etc.? Also, I'm trying to get JSTOR access through WP to be able to get historical journals that might deal with this sort of thing, because it wouldn't necessarily be book-length.MSJapan (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The subject matter is bigger than anyone would expect, due to the enormity of interest that attracts endless theories. Dickie birdie (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are some more well-known than others; we don't need to be exhaustive, merely representative. However, if there is enough material, we can always spin off said material into a new article specifically on conspiracy theories relating to Rennes if it gets too big. Then it just links here as a "main topic" for that section. MSJapan (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Disingenuous to call "Holy Blood Holy Grail" a nonfictional book
Most of the premise behind "Holy Blood Holy Grail" is speculative, even if some sources are cited. It is therefore misleading to call it a "nonfictional" book. Call it "theoretical" if you must. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones1972 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)