Holy Blood, Holy Grail (39 page)

But even before Dante, Guillem had again become an object of literary attention. In the early thirteenth century he figured as the protagonist of

Willehalm, an unfinished epic romance composed by Wolfram von Eschenbach whose most famous work, Parzival, is probably the most important of all romances dealing with the mysteries of the Holy Grail.

It seemed to us somewhat curious at first that Wolfram -all of whose other work deals with the Grail, the “Grail family’ and the lineage of the “Grail family’ should suddenly devote himself to so radically different a theme as Guillem de

Gellone. On the other hand, Wolfram stated in another poem that the “Grail castle’, abode of the “Grail family’, was situated in the Pyrenees in what, at the beginning of the ninth century, was Guillem de Gellone’s domain.

Guillem maintained a close rapport with Charlemagne. His sister, in fact, was married to one of Charlemagne’s sons, thus establishing a.dynastic link with the imperial blood. And Guillem himself was one of Charlemagne’s most important commanders in the incessant warfare against the Moors. In 803, shortly after Charlemagne’s coronation as Holy Roman Emperor, Guillem captured Barcelona, doubling his own territory and extending his influence across the Pyrenees. So grateful was Charlemagne for his services that his principality was confirmed by the emperor as a permanent institution. The charter ratifying this has been lost or destroyed, but there is abundant testimony to its existence.

Independent and unimpugnable authorities have provided detailed genealogies of Guillem de Gellone’s line his family and descendants.z9

These sources, however, provide no indication of Guillem’s antecedents, except for his father, Theodoric. In short, the real origins of the family were shrouded in mystery. And contemporary scholars and historians are generally somewhat puzzled about the enigmatic appearance, as if by spontaneous combustion, of so influential a noble house. But one thing, at any rate, is certain. By 886 the line of Guillem de Gellone culminated in a certain Bernard

- 269 -

Plantavelu, who established the duchy of Aquitaine. In other words Guillem’s line culminated in precisely the same individual as the line ascribed by the

“Prieur6 documents’ to Sigisbert IV and his descendants.

We were tempted, of course, to jump to conclusions, and use the genealogies in the “Prieur6 documents’ to bridge the gap left by accepted history. We were tempted to assume that the elusive progenitors of Guillem de Gellone were Dagobert II, and Sigisbert IV

and the main line of the deposed

Merovingian dynasty the line cited in the “Prieur6 documents’ under the name Plant-Ard or Plantard.

Unfortunately we could not do so. Given the confused state of existing records, we could not definitively establish the precise connection between the Plantard line and the line of Guillem de Gellone. They might indeed have been one and the same. On the other hand, they might have intermarried at some point. What remained certain, however, was that both lines, by 886, had culminated in Bernard Plantavelu and the dukes of Aquitaine.

Although they did not always match precisely in dating and translation of names, the genealogies connected with Guillem de Gellone did constitute a certain independent confirmation for the genealogies in the “Prieur6 documents’. We could thus tentatively accept, in the absence of any contradictory evidence, that the Merovingian bloodline did continue, more or less as the “Prieur6 documents’ maintained. We could tentatively accept that Sigisbert did survive his father’s murder, did adopt the family name of Plantard and, as count of Razes, did perpetuate his father’s lineage.

Prince Ursus

By 886, of course, the “flowering shoot of the Merovingian vine’ had blossomed into a large and complicated family tree. Bernard Plantavelu and the dukes of Aquitaine constitute one branch. There were other branches as well. Thus the “Prieur6 documents’

declare that Sigisbert IV’s grandson, Sigisbert VI, was known by the name of “Prince Ursus’.

Between 877 and 879 “Prince Ursus’ is said to have been officially proclaimed “King Ursus’. Aided by two nobles Bernard dAuvergne and

- 270 -

the marquis of Gothic he is said to have undertaken an insurrection against Louis II of France in an attempt to regain his rightful heritage.

Independent historians confirm that such an insurrection did indeed occur between 877

and 879. These same historians refer to Bernard dAuvergne and the marquis of Gothic.

The leader, or instigator, of the insurrection is not specifically named as Sigisbert VI. But there are references to an individual known as “Prince Ursus’. Moreover, “Prince Ursus’ is known to have been involved in a curious and elaborate ceremony in Nimes, at which five hundred assembled ecclesiastics chanted the Te Deum.3 From all accounts of it, this ceremony would seem to have been a coronation. It may well have been the coronation to which the “Prieure documents’ alluded the proclamation of “Prince Ursus’ as king.

Once again, the “Prieure documents’ received independent support. Once again, they seemed to draw on information unobtainable elsewhere information which supplemented and sometimes even helped explain caesuras in accepted history. In this case, they had apparently told us who the elusive “Prince Ursus’ actually was -the lineal descendant, through

Sigisbert IV, of the murdered Dagobert II. And the insurrection, of which historians had hitherto made no sense, could now be seen as a perfectly comprehensible attempt by the deposed Merovingian dynasty to regain its heritage the heritage conferred upon it by Rome through the pact with

Clovis, and then subsequently betrayed.

According to both the “Prieure documents’ and independent sources, the insurrection failed, “Prince Ursus’ and his supporters being defeated at a battle near Poitiers in 881. With this setback, the Plantard family is said to have lost its possessions in the south of France although it still clung to the now purely titular status of duke of Rhedae and count of

Razes. “Prince Ursus’ is said to have died in Brittany, while his line became allied by marriage with the Breton ducal house. By the late ninth century, then, the Merovingian blood had flowed into the duchies of both

Brittany and Aquitaine.

In the years that followed, the family including Alain, later duke of Brittany is said to have sought refuge in England, establishing an

- 271 -

English branch called “Planta’. 3 The Merovingian Dynasty The Counts of Rues

From Henri Lobineau’s work, based on work by Abbe Pichon and Dr.

Herr&

Sourer Sourer I Mrmvmgun I I Vth I

DAGO BERT II GISELLE DE RAZES

7.d4,ehrcr of Sams Wdfnd of Yo r4 Lrvm” r Adar

IRmno-k-Ch3rcau)

SIG6SBERT IV =MAGDALA

676-758

Coum f Razbs

“Ardenr Shooi. Nrw sour . Iled “Les ~lam-Ard Cahlrd 71sT HMmrt Princes’ brcauu ‘hr’ uMr. rtfuge n rhr ^vms hill RI Mae dung hr SI(“ISBERT V5anan mvauon. Thr carted rombuonr 695/698 - 767/768

ofrhert common gray oday m rhr

Coum of Razesarum ar Rmnrs-k-Charra~

OLBABERA III

(Alda?i 715-70

Count of Razes

7 marnagcs GUILLAUMEOLIBA 0~unry( Rax2s

ROM ILLE -BERA IVODfOLIBA-RICHILDF 755-813 d. 839 <:ounr f Raze.

Foooded, Abbey of Alrr

~~-~1~ OLIBA.AIFRFD

Cuuns of Car.assonne <.oum of Rame ggl%g7D/R77 d 9U6

At ARIC. ROIAUDEARGILAREVERGF ~ d. 855”75-83 ; T

Rccrt.rd BI anchrfort noun of R x hrr, dowry. 715

AUREOL BERA V -- .

so~rtr of rhr Blan,hcfort794-861) family ( ounr of Raxes

HILDERIC 1 BERNARD

sourer c un dr of Razes “I’lama-vela’ or Carohnyan I 86’ “Plama-Plus’

CHARLES a L.rum of Raxh the Bald of Frame d. 877

Esrabhshrd

T D-h, of Aqurtamr

RO7ILDF - SIGISBERT VI

“Prmcc Ursui d. 8841885

Laar Counr of Ram

Mmuvmgun drumr

- 272 -

L- ..Ld 1. after fail.. of opn agn Louu II ~n ggg Independent authorities again confirm that Alain, his family and entourage, fled from the Vikings to England. According to the “Prieure documents’, one of the English branch of the family, listed as Bera VI, was nicknamed

‘the

Architect’. He and his descendants, having found a haven in England under

King Athelstan, are said to have practised ‘the art of building’ - a seemingly enigmatic reference. Interestingly enough, Masonic sources date the origin of Freemasonry in England from the reign of King Athelstan.3’

Could the Merovingian bloodline, we wondered, in addition to its claim to the French throne, be in some way connected with something at the core of

Freemasonry?

The Grail Family

The Middle Ages abound with a mythology as rich and resonant as those of ancient Greece and Rome. Some of this mythology pertains, although wildly exaggerated in form, to actual historical personages to Arthur, to Roland and Charlemagne, to Rodrigo Diaz of Vivar, popularly known as El Cid. Other myths like those relating to the Grail, for example would seem at first to rest on a more tenuous foundation.

Among the most popular and evocative of medieval myths is that of Lohengrin, the “Swan Knight’. On the one hand it is closely linked with the fabulous Grail romances; on the other it cites specific historical personages. In its mingling of fact and fantasy it may well be unique. And through such works as Wagner’s opera it continues to exert its archetypal appeal even today.

According to medieval accounts, Lohengrin sometimes called Helias, implying solar associations was a scion of the elusive and mysterious

“Grail family’. In Wolfram von Eschenbach’s poem, he is in fact the son of

Parzival, the supreme’ Knight of the Grail’. One day, in the sacred temple or castle of the Grail at Munsalvaesche, Lohengrin is said to have heard the chapel bell tolling without the intervention of human hands a signal that his aid was urgently required somewhere in the world. It was required, predictably enough, by a damsel in distress

- 273 -

the duchess of Brabant32 according to some sources, the duchess of Bouillon according to others. The lady desperately needed a champion, and Lohengrin hastened to her rescue in a boat drawn by heraldic swans. In single combat he defeated the duchess’s persecutor, then married the lady. At their nuptials, however, he issued a stringent warning. Never was his bride to query him about his origins or ancestry, his background or the place whence he came. And for some years the lady obeyed her husband’s edict. At last, however, goaded to fatal curiosity by the scurrilous insinuations of rivals, she presumed to ask the forbidden question.

Thereupon, Lohengrin was compelled to depart, vanishing in his swan drawn boat into the sunset. And behind him, with his wife, he left a child of uncertain lineage. According to the various accounts, this child was either the father or the grandfather of Godfroi de Bouillon.

It is difficult for the modern mind to appreciate the magnitude of Godfroi’s status in popular consciousness -not only in his own time but even as late as the seventeenth century. Today, when one thinks of the

Crusades, one thinks of Richard Coeur de Lion, King John, perhaps Louis IX (Saint Louis) or Frederick Barbarossa. But until relatively recently, none of these individuals enjoyed Godfroi’s prestige or acclaim. Godfroi, leader of the First Crusade, was the supreme popular hero, the hero par excellence. It was Godfroi who inaugurated the Crusades. It was Godfroi who captured Jerusalem from the Saracens. It was Godfroi who rescued Christ’s sepulchre from infidel hands. It was Godfroi, above all others, who, in people’s imaginations, reconciled the ideals of high chivalric enterprise and fervent Christian piety.

Not surprisingly, therefore, Godfroi became the object of a cult which persisted long after his death.

Given this exalted status, it is understandable that Godfroi should be credited with all manner of illustrious mythical pedigrees. It is even understandable that Wolfram von Eschenbach, and other medieval romanciers, should link him directly with the Grail should depict him as a lineal descendant of the mysterious “Grail family’. And such fabulous pedigrees are rendered even more comprehensible by the fact that Godfroi’s true lineage is obscure. History remains uncomfortably

- 274 -

uncertain about his ancestry.33 The Prieure documents’ furnished us with the most plausible perhaps, indeed, the first plausible -genealogy of Godfroi de Bouillon that has yet come to light. As far as this genealogy could be checked and much of it could be it proved accurate. We found no evidence to contradict it, much to support it; and it convincingly bridged a number of perplexing historical gaps.

According to the genealogy in the “Prieure documents’, Godfroi de Bouillon by virtue of his great-grandmother, who married Hugues de Plantard in 1009 was a lineal descendant of the Plantard family. In other words

Godfroi was of Merovingian blood, directly descended from Dagobert II,

Sigisbert IV and the line of Merovingian “lost kings’ - “les rois perdus’.

For four centuries the Merovingian blood royal appears to have flowed through gnarled and numerous family trees. At last, through a process analogous to the grafting of vines in viticulture, it would seem to have borne fruit in Godfroi de Bouillon, Duke of Lorraine.

And here, in the house of Lorraine, it established a new patrimony.

This revelation cast a significant new light on the Crusades. We could now perceive the Crusades from a new perspective, and discern in them something more than the symbolic gesture of reclaiming Christ’s supulchre from the

Saracens.

In his own eyes, as well as those of his supporters, Godfroi would have been more than duke of Lorraine. He would, in fact, have been a rightful king a legitimate claimant of the dynasty deposed with Dagobert II in 679. But if Godfroi was a rightful king, he was also a king without a kingdom; and the Capetian dynasty in France, supported by the Roman Church, was by then too well entrenched to be dethroned.