Talk:Bérenger Saunière

self promotion? May 2008

\\\I have tried to add a source of information on the subjects of Rennes le Chateau, Saunierre, The Holy Grail etc but my inserts have been repeatedly removed as self promotion. My book The Secret History of Christianity, is a serious piece of literature and I think it should be given the same type of mention in the articles as The Holy blood Holy grail. I notice the editors don't accuse or remove Henry Lincolns name or Dan Brown as self promoting. Read the book its a beginners guide to understanding the correlation between heretic art, Rosslyn, The Templars.(Mrmajinka (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Other Wikipedia editors have removed your contributions on the basis of self-promotion and have advised you not to do it. Furthermore, it is part of Wikipedia Policy to not to

promote Fringe material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

Wfgh66 (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag 2004

I have no particular objection to anyone making changes in this article. However, user 195.92.194.17 (whom I believe is Paul Smith) completely replaced the article that I and others have worked on. I've done my best to blend the new into the old, but in the future, please make edits rather than replacing the entire article. See Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page and Wikipedia:Tutorial for more information. Please try to make edits conform to Wikipedia Style. Gwimpey 02:14, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

As there haven't been any recent problems, I'm going to remove the NPOV notice. Gwimpey 09:58, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Da Vinci fans have vandalised Rennes-le-Chateau to the point Sauniere's been reïnterred in 5 cu.yd. of concrete under a 3 t sarcophagus.SMH with G-D reg req'd Kwantus 00:03, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

trafficking in masses ? unsigned and undated

Trafficing in masses? Anyone care to make an edit to clarify just what, exactly, that is? It's not exactly clear what it means: holding church services too often?

conspiracy theories?

"He would be unknown today if not for the fact that he is a central figure in many of the conspiracy theories surrounding Rennes-le-Château."

Though there are some conspiracy theories around Rennes-le-Chateau, largely, the story is one about treasure and mystery, not conspiracies. E.g. a conspiracy theory would be that Sauniere was involved in a political murder, and that most books about Sauniere tackle such things. However, most books focus on stories of Sauniere finding "something" buried in his village. Hence, qualifying this as "conspiracy theory" is totally incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.202.254 (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Capagne les Bains ??

According to such sites as www.viamichelin.fr and others, there is no such place in France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.178.111.19 (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

HB,HG & Da Vinci Code

The entry alleges: "co-wrote the 1982 book Holy Blood Holy Grail, in which, unaware they were relying on forged documents as a source, they stated as a "fact" that the Priory of Sion had existed. The book became an international bestseller, inspiring several authors and resulting bestsellers, such as Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince's The Templar Revelation, and Dan Brown's 2003 novel, The Da Vinci Code."

The courtcase Baigent & Leigh vs. RandomHouse, in the matter of The Da Vinci Code, however, concluded Brown's novel was not based on HB,HG; this was conform to Brown's statement that HB,HG did not serve as his source. As such, this passage should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.178.111.19 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Trafficking in masses

I will try to explain what trafficking in masses is. I prefer not to edit the article myself, because I am Spanish and, although I write English well, I don't want to make mistakes in a wikipedia article.

At the time of Berenger Sauniere the souls of people who died went often to the purgatorium (nowadays, the purgatorium in the Catholicism doesn't exist (or so did the last Pope said)).

Familiars where expected to pay to a priest to celebrate masses in the memory of their beloved and died familiars.

Also, priests weren't allowed to dedicate one mass to more than one soul. That limit disappeared decades ago, but was still present at the time of Sauniere.

What Sauniere did was offering masses to familiars of people he saw had died in the newspapers but never had time to celebrate them. As Sauniere wrote a register of every letter he did send and receive about this and given the limit mentioned before and the duration of masses (at least half an hour) it is easy to see that he couldn't celebrate the masses that the familiars were paying him to.

That is said "trafficking with masses". For more info about the details of Sauniere's trafficking with masses, you can see them at www.priory-of-sion.com

Ambigious Evidence

I have spent some time and effort researching this topic, and the facts are few and far between. Much of the evidence that exists (for either party) is ambigious and vague. Both the pro-hoax and pro-mystery sides are guilty of twisting the evidence. Although it is true that Sauniere was charged with mass trafficking, that alone does not account for the money he spent on developing the estate. No other source is apparent. This, of course, is taken by the pro-hoaxers to mean that no other source existed, while the pro-mystery faction take it as concrete proof of another source.

At this stage, I believe, that any empirical evidence related to this case is buried under so many layers of misinterpretation and misconstruance that the facts can never be known.

Gabhala 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Try reading some of the essential French books on the subject matter and you will see that the evidence is not that "ambiguous" and that Sauniere's first bishop, Monsignor Billard, amassed more money from selling masses - over one million francs - no need to travel that far from Rennes-le-Chateau to find proof of the same sort of thing - Billard was the Bishop of Carcassonne until he, too, was suspended for committing financial irregularities within the French Church.

wfgh66

Marie

The journal entries in the article are given as evidence of his relationship with his housekeeper. I don't quite follow how his housekeeper coming home and fixing his meals is equivalent to them having a relationship over and above employer/employee. Could someone clarify that? --Silverhand^Talk 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no "relationship" between Sauniere and his housekeeper. wfgh66.

what about the reports that they were father and daughter?

Sauniere and Marie Denarnaud

I have deleted the part of the article that claimed that Sauniere had an "ambiguous relationship with Marie Denarnaud". If you visit the village of Rennes-le-Chateau you will find that its inhabitants treat such piffle with humorous contempt, and that they do not follow the life of the priest as some "mystery".

I have replaced the passages with this addition:

Quoting Sauniere's principles on which he dealt with his maidservant, Marie Denarnaud: "Respect, but not familiarity. Not to permit her to talk about matters of his ministry. What you say to a servant should not be able to be said to other women. She must avoid ecxesses of language, and he must not trust in her age or her piety too easily. She is not to enter the bedroom when he is in bed, except in case of illnesses." (cited in Corbu & Captier, L'Heritage de l'Abbe Sauniere, 1985, page 71).

wfgh66

I see that your deletion was reverted. Let's see if we can resolve the problem from another angle: under the heading "Ministry", the 3rd paragraph begins "Claims that Bérenger Saunière had an ambiguous relationship with his maidservant..." The use of "ambiguous" here actually adds ambiguity to the article, whereas Wikipedia is intended to reduce ambiguity. The phrase "ambiguous relationship" conveys no information without a stronger term for it to modify (such as saying that a hero had an "ambiguous relationship" with a villain, which actually tells us something about the dynamic between them). But suggesting an "ambiguous relationship" between a priest and his female housekeeper tells us nothing. If the intent is to suggest that Saunière and Denarnaud had an intimate relationship, then plain-speaking should be used; say "Claims that Bérenger Saunière had an intimate relationship with his maidservant..." Unless someone can suggest a more appropriate way to phrase it, that is what I will change it to. Bricology (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Andre Douzet

The paragraph relating to Andre Douzet has been removed because he is widely regarded as a hoaxer and a charlatan in France and belongs to the world of Fringe and not to the world of bonafide historical research. See for example: http://www.octonovo.org/RlC/Fr/ctrb/ctrb07.htm

Only recently, a few weeks ago during an interview Jean-Luc Robin stated about Douzet: "I haven't yet been shown the proofs that the letters Sauniere exchanged with the manufacturer of the model were genuine" (Douzet is promising to "show" these letters in Summer 2008 - why not straight away?).

The person responsible for inserting the paragraphs relating to Douzet in this article is most probably Filip Coppens, his ardent disciple.

Be warned! Douzet has never provided any evidence to substantiate his allegations despite what the contributor to this Wikipedia article claims (the French can testify to that) and Douzet belongs to the world of the Fringe and not to bonafide historical research.

wfgh66 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

= Sauniere as Free Priest of RLC between 1909 and 1917

I added to the article the fact that Sauniere operated in the capacity of Free Priest in RLC between 1909-1917 following his transfer to Coustouges and subsequent resignation on 1 February 1909. Sauniere received corresondence that read: Berenger Sauniere, Pretre Libre, Rennes-le-Chateau, Aude. These addressed enevelopes to Sauniere are reproduced in several French books.

wfgh66 —Preceding comment was added at 07:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Referencing and footnotes

Please note that a list of references at the end of the article is not considered adequate on Wikipedia. There should be citations (with page numbers) using footnotes throughout the article so that other editors may tell what is actually verifiable (and by extension, what is not). Wednesday Next (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Then buy the books and fill in the footnotes yourself. It's time you began reading some history for a change. And stop targetting Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Chateu for abundance and abundance of unnecessary footnotes. Go to other articles on Wikipedia that are devoid of footnotes like Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus Epiphanes is more notable in world history than Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Chateau. Or don't you want to do that? Wfgh66 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the editor who added the information to properly cite it. Any editor may remove improperly cited material. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Then remove the uncited material. But the moment you begin copying and pasting from Holy Blood and Holy Grail that will be the moment when that material will be discredited.

Wfgh66 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please be specific as to the issues - try three issues to start with - we can then resolve those and move on. No specific issues - no tags! --Matilda ^talk 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of specific issues, which I have tagged individually. Sources are referred to in such an opaque manner as to be unverifiable. A "report", a "local paper". Where is the title and date of the report. How could we find it? Is it a primary source? Is there a secondary source which mentions it?

"Claims" about the subject's relationship with his maidservant are brought up, but not sourced. Neither is the dismissal of them as "myth and legend" sourced.\

It is stated that the subject was "tried" in 1910. Tried by whom? a church court? a provincial court? what kind of court? And what was the outcome? what is the reliable source that reports this trial?

"There were ... accusations" Why is this is passive voice. Who made the accusations? What source reports on these accusations?

"The popular story" - what sources report on the popular story as such? Is there a core story and variants?

"The actual source" - there is one sourced sentence here, which may represent one researcher's opinion. What is the source for all the details. How certain are the details? Are they really certain enough to use the loaded word "actual" in the section heading?

"rumors" - is this section all hearsay? it is quite short on citations. How can "a local paper" be verified. Why do we have an article title without the name of the publication in which it appeared or the date of publication. What supports the story being "picked up by the national press"? Shouldn't we have a citation for a claim that "the conspirators admitted fraud"?

These questions and defects in verifiability is why I tagged the article. It seems quite deficient in actual verifiable citations while giving the impression of being sourced. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added sub sub heads for each of these issues and we can discuss there. I have dealt with one issue but have limited time for more at present. --Matilda ^talk 23:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Claims" about the subject's relationship with his maidservant

Resolved

 – although cite requested for "no justification for the claim " Matilda ^talk 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Claims" about the subject's relationship with his maidservant are brought up, but not sourced. Neither is the dismissal of them as "myth and legend" sourced. Wednesday Next (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have provided a ref for claims about the relationship. Tagged for citation needed for "no justification for the claim " --Matilda ^talk 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

1910 trial

Resolved

 – Matilda ^talk 00:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is stated that the subject was "tried" in 1910. Tried by whom? a church court? a provincial court? what kind of court? And what was the outcome? what is the reliable source that reports this trial? Wednesday Next (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/60minutes/printable1552009.shtml (currently note 7) references the trial and states Where did the priest of Rennes Le Chateau, Bérenger Saunière, get the money to build his estate? In 1910 he was summoned to appear before the bishop's court in the local, medieval-walled city of Carcasonne. In Carcasonne, Sauniere was tried and found guilty of trafficking in masses. Priests are allowed to accept money for saying up to three masses a day. But what Saunière had done was to solicit and receive money for thousands of masses, which he couldn't possibly have said. In fact, he didn't even try. So the source of the wealth of the priest of Rennes le Chateau was not some ancient, mysterious treasure — but good old-fashioned fraud. CBS news meets WP:RS --Matilda ^talk 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note - the issues are exapnded on at the section The actual source of Saunière's wealth--Matilda ^talk 00:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I note I had already drawn Wednesday Next's attention to this ref on his talk page?--Matilda ^talk 01:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

Resolved

 – Matilda ^talk 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"There were ... accusations" Why is this is passive voice. Who made the accusations? What source reports on these accusations? Wednesday Next (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• ref added re German spies - google it and you will find plenty more --Matilda ^talk 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Popular Story

Resolved

 – Matilda ^talk 00:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"The popular story" - what sources report on the popular story as such? Is there a core story and variants? Wednesday Next (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

de Sede's obit at [1] supports the assertions at the section on The popular story of Saunière's wealth - I have added the reference. --Matilda ^talk 23:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual source

Resolved

 – Matilda ^talk 00:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"The actual source" - there is one sourced sentence here, which may represent one researcher's opinion. What is the source for all the details. How certain are the details? Are they really certain enough to use the loaded word "actual" in the section heading? Wednesday Next (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think so - why don't you read the ref - see above on 1910 trial. However I have added another ref --Matilda ^talk 00:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rumours

Resolved

 – Matilda ^talk 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"rumors" - is this section all hearsay? it is quite short on citations. How can "a local paper" be verified. Why do we have an article title without the name of the publication in which it appeared or the date of publication. What supports the story being "picked up by the national press"? Shouldn't we have a citation for a claim that "the conspirators admitted fraud"? Wednesday Next (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• ref supplied including scanned images of the papers to verify. It is pretty self evident that the story was picked up but the cite in fact supports this. Cite added for fraud admission--Matilda ^talk 00:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Book covers

It is my understanding that the standard on Wikipedia is that images of book covers are only considered to be fair use on an article specifically about the book in question. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange story

it is said on the web that there are 'legends' of sauniere having found old documents and some even say treasures buried in or around his rennes-le-chateau church. even if presented as legends and myths, someone should include these in the article. 21 August, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlightener 749 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

None of the claims date from Sauniere's lifetime, and are recent devised by those with various agendas. The legends are dealt with in the "The popular story of Saunière's wealth" part of the article.Lung salad (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bérenger Saunière. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080601210809/http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com:80/archive/summer03/review09.shtml.htm to http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/summer03/review09.shtml.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051031175832/http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aIYDKB6k2TBs&refer=europe to http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aIYDKB6k2TBs&refer=europe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bérenger Saunière. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309010810/http://www.insolite.asso.fr/rennes/biblio/biblio34.htm to http://www.insolite.asso.fr/rennes/biblio/biblio34.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309010810/http://www.insolite.asso.fr/rennes/biblio/biblio34.htm to http://www.insolite.asso.fr/rennes/biblio/biblio34.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"purchased a clergyman's directory"?

Under the heading "Ecclesiastical trials, punishment and suspension" the final sentence of the first paragraph reads "In 1899 Saunière purchased a clergymen's directory (Annuaire du clergé français) through which he contacted both priests and religious communities across France to solicit Mass requests (emphasis added)." Can anyone explain what "purchasing a clergyman's directory" means? My reading of this sentence suggests that the implication is that Saunière purchased advertising space in a directory, through which other priests and religious communities could pay him to say masses for them, but that may be incorrect. But as it stands, "purchasing a clergyman's directory" implies that Saunière actually bought copies of printed directories, which is nonsensical. Bricology (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)