It was with little surprise that I received Robert Howells’ letter back in the summer of 2005. The manager of the antiquarian book section at Watkins Bookshop had already contacted me by telephone to see if I was prepared to accept Robert’s correspondence. The manner in which I was approached seemed to me to be following the correct etiquette and displayed a marked respect for the order with whom he was seeking contact. Eventually we found ourselves immersed in a great deal of email, and his questions seemed endless.
From the outset many of Robert’s questions required that I contact others in Sion’s ranks in order to negate reprisals or even harsh words and arguments thereafter. If I was going to assist Robert then I was going to do so with Sion’s blessing, or at least the blessings of those with whom I had developed a solid rapport over a period of almost forty years. Even then, things were not always to run as smoothly as any of us would have liked. There were some repercussions. Fallings-out, and a lot of explaining on my part.
Despite having been proclaimed ‘a hoax’ back in the 1980s, Sion had continued to flourish as it had always done, and the apparent secret they were said to be guarding – the Holy Bloodline – was and remains but one facet, one element of which they are the age-old custodians.
What many could not comprehend was how the notion of a Holy Bloodline could encounter such hostility and offence. Surely those who believed the collection of writings incorporated into the Bible, those who had read them, could not have missed the fact that many of Christ’s disciples were said to have been married. Furthermore, many had families. Children. Surely their respective family trees could be traced, and if not traceable, then at least they were known to the families from whom they were the descended. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church even tried to kill all Jesus’ relatives on the maternal side. The Desposyni, or blood relatives, as Rome had called them, were to be expunged at all cost. Surely that act itself would be an act of Deicide. Why were those in Rome so worried? What did they fear sufficiently to justify murdering their own god’s blood-family? Perhaps they feared the truth coming to light, and such a scenario could certainly not have been permitted. The rapidly growing new empire of the Roman Church stood to gain more than its predecessor, the secular Roman Empire, could ever have hoped: total obedience, but obedience based upon personal and spiritual guilt.
What had rendered the Church’s task seemingly impossible was the fact that the third expulsion of Jews from France (and other countries) in the 13th century merely required that they convert to Catholicism or leave. This, Rome assumed, would cause any remaining members of Jesus’ maternal bloodline to fall quietly into toeing the line. This would also have been the case for any descendants of the apostles. (However, Rome’s behaviour, ancient though it now is, has left tell-tale marks in the fact that Rome appears to hold the Virgin Mother in greater esteem than the all-important Jesus Christ, and the same can be said of St Peter.) But the terms underpinning the third expulsion of Jews from France simply caused them, for example, to go into hiding, pretending to be members of a religion which, in reality, they despised. This explains why so many noble family escutcheons and arms display Judaic symbolism and what can also be taken for occult devices openly, almost in flagrant defiance of Rome’s past edicts.
Even if there had been no marriage between Jesus and Mary of Bethany (Mary Magdalene), and no offspring, then surely the children of the apostles would have posed some sort of threat to Rome’s new religion founded on a fusion of Mithras, Virgin birth and significant pagan and ancient Egyptian elements.
We know that the Celtic Church still clung most vehemently to the ‘original’ tenets of true Christianity. We also know that the major symbols of significance to the Celts were such things as an equal-armed cross as opposed to a cruciform cross; the circle and/or disc; a crescent-moon shape lying on its back; and a crook akin to that of a shepherd or those found in Egyptian religion, (they are also likely to have used a symbolic flail). They also used the endless knot (as found in Islamic art) and, perhaps most bafflingly, a shape that appears to be a stylized fish, but which could equally represent one half of the ancient symbol for eternity or even the orbit of a celestial body. Even if it is a representation of a fish it is unlikely to refer to Christ as the ‘Fisher of Men’. More likely it was a far older symbol relating to an ancient global story of the union of a female human and a semi-aquatic creature. It may also have its basis in a crude or stylized ancient Egyptian hieroglyph.
Celtic Christians had no crucifixes on their altars or anywhere else, and they observed their Sabbath on a Saturday. They had a peculiar form of tonsure which divided the entire head of hair into two distinct and separate halves. They had statues akin to those of Isis on their altars, and Egyptian iconography painted on the church walls. All their places of worship would appear to have had ceilings painted with the stars and constellations much like those found in ancient Egyptian temples and the Great Pyramid at Giza. Isis also bore the name ‘Queen of Heaven’, later used by the Catholic Church as an address to the Virgin Mary.
Equally, the circle of stars frequently depicted surrounding the Virgin’s head is reminiscent of the flag of the European Union. If, in Rome’s eyes, the stars are meant to indicate the number of disciples then why is she at the centre? Why are they shown encircling her head? Perhaps because, when all said and done, Mary is also a disciple. Indeed, the main disciple. She was, according to the Church, the first to see the risen Christ.
However it is equally likely, if not more so, that Mary of Bethany played a pivotal role in the mystery school that Christ promulgated, and that she and Jesus were married and had a family of their own. It is likely that, failing an attempt to reinstate the royal house of David in Roman-occupied Judea, they fled using trade maps or part of a trading route already in regular use by merchants such as Joseph of Arimathea and the Egyptians before that. It may even be that they originally set out for the Iberian Peninsula, where Rome’s reach did not fully extend, but for some reason instead made landfall in France, not far from the present-day Spanish border.
Several elements of the above may not have been previously known to all readers. In that respect through my contact with Robert Howells I have attempted to enlighten those who were hitherto uninformed or had missed the connecting threads, while recapping historical attitudes and events for others.
Back in the autumn of 2005 I was told to convey a simple message and I did so:
‘It matters little whether Sion’s reality is believed or not.... It really makes no difference. There will come a time when many will say [of what will ultimately be revealed in due course], “Oh, it’s pretty much what we expected”, etc. It will, hopefully, come as no real surprise. It is all in the timing – the points at which information and proof are released.’
As my colleague Gino Sandri, Sion’s Secretary General, has already aptly stated:
‘The Priory of Sion has become a household name. A brand name if you will....’
This is in keeping with Sion’s goal, much in the same way that, through carefully timed release, the majority of younger people believe there was a marriage between Jesus and Mary of Bethany, or at least have no problem or issue with the notion of it. Children, they seem to accept, would be a natural result of the union.
So Sion’s current circuit is going according to plan, or has already done so, and the pace at which future material will be disseminated is very soon to gain rapidly increasing momentum.
We furnished a vast amount of material in our correspondences with Robert Howells. Only about ten percent was of any practical use in his role as a researcher for an American film company making a feature-length documentary, Bloodline. There was a vast amount which, we know, was not passed to the film’s producers. It would have served no purpose. However, for Robert it acted as a supplement to the wealth of material and information already supplied.
When he stated that he wanted to write a book about Sion there was immediate approval from at least three of its members. Even Pierre Plantard’s son – Thomas – seemed content with this notion. Robert, we knew, had been a seriously assiduous student of occult sciences and had spent many years researching secret societies and related symbolism. I knew that he could be trusted to use the material that was surplus to the documentary.
There were several reasons why we were so agreeable. Partly because Robert Howells had soon realized that there was far more to the so-called ‘mystery of Rennes-le-Château’ than merely embalmed corpses and golden treasures. He had already grasped that there was – and is – something uniquely important about the area itself. Something which others have failed to comprehend, but is of vital importance to the world? Do the environs of Rennes-le-Château hold an ancient secret? Yes. Is it geographical in nature? Yes. A secret with relevance for the future? Certainly!
The author desperately wanted us to furnish him with additional documents and manuscripts. I was in favour of such a request, but others were not. Nonetheless, further documents and images were eventually supplied, and general information has been given with the consent of a handful of Sion’s members. Had the edict of the ‘old guard’ been observed then little, if anything, would have been forthcoming. Fortunately, in the early years, back in 2005, I had ‘slipped in’ additional information by way of steers, snippets and references that I knew would provide – in part – some intriguing answers if followed up.
As to the machinations and structure of the Order of the Priory of Sion (or ‘Sion’ for the sake of brevity), I have only furnished paperwork for which I sought permission. At least one other high-ranking member had done likewise, and we have attempted to answer academic questions directly. However, Sion seldom speaks plainly and when it does so it is most on its guard. This does not seem to impede our author’s ability to comprehend, and he possesses both the knowledge and the mindset with which to perform the exacting task he has set for himself.
Nicolas Haywood
January 2011
London