Customer Reviews

Secrets of Rennes-Le-Chateau

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

The Fanthorpes want to tell us everything they know but don't bother to organize the treasure they believe they found. Facts and theories stumble over each other in long, meandering paragraphs. They announce their strong disagreement and disapproval with the theory set forth in Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but do not present an alternative clearly and with enough evidence for me to grasp. Too bad. I like their hidden treasure theme.

I suppose what was especially disappointing were the several photos of Lionel looking too pleased with himself at important locales. I would rather have seen more graphs and visuals which promoted the revelations of those secrets.

They present some fascinating esoteric codes at the end of the book, but don't explain them well enough for the average intelligent reader who happens not to be a puzzle fan.

The Fanthorpes explore the Rennes mystery, and offer some good information in this book. However, it isn't always presented clearly and some of the theories and conclusions they draw from it don't seem fully supported. I was left with the impression that the book was half Rennes investigation, and half platform from which to denounce Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It's not surprising (given Lionel's clergy background) that they would disagree with Holy Blood, Holy Grail's conclusions. But this potential bias must be remembered when reading it, and their dismissive tone when talking about some of the more controversial theories about Rennes needs to be taken with a corresponding grain of salt. If they offered counter-evidence convincingly presented, that would be a different matter. Instead, their otherwise interesting investigation seems marred by jabs at other investigators...usually countering other investigators' arguments with faith instead of evidence.

I have to say that I agree with the previous reviews which are phrased very politely. I don't feel so nice after spending my money on three books of illogical drivel. I won't even read the other two, but will return them for a refund!

On page 42, Fanthorpe mentions Guirdham's book "The Cathars and Reincarnation," saying that Guirdham "very lucidly indicates many Cathars actually believed in reincarnation: if the evidence of Dr. Guirdham's principle informant is to be taken seriously, and there is much in her evidence that deserves careful and sober reflection, some Cathars actually succeeded in practising it."

Well, aside from being a non sequitur, I am not sure how a person "practices" reincarnation. But, then, Fanthorpe goes on to outline the Cathar beliefs just as though they are the one's derived from Guirdham's source... which they are NOT.

As it happens, I just finished reading Guirdham's book, and what Fanthorpe tries to imply (or wishes the reader to infer) as information from that source, is merely the same old anti-Catharist rant derived from the records of the Holy Inquisition. So much for Fanthorpe's honesty.

Next, in one of his snide jabs at Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent's excellent work (leaving out whether it is correct or not; it is still good research, and is well presented), Fanthorpe makes the most AMAZING statment I think I have ever encountered, to wit: "By invoking an argument as tortuous as any Orwellian... doublethink, "The Messianic Legacy" attempts to discredit any arguments based on subjective feelings and inner experiences. ...[Lincoln Leigh and Baigent protest] that when the feelings and beliefs that belong to this inner sanctum begin to 'distort, alter or transform historical fact' or when they 'derange dramatically the laws of probability' the believer cannot expect other people to 'condone the process.' This line of thought seems to presuppose that something called a 'simple historical fact' can ever be ascertained with the certainty which Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln ascribe to it. The simplicity is knocked out of most so-called simple historical - or any other kind of facts by the theory of relativity and its comments on the position of the observer." (p.46)

Fanthorpe then goes on to set up an example that has NO relation whatsoever to the issue. He describes a tramp hanging underneath a moving train looking up through the glass floor at two boys tossing a ball, with an observer on the platform, all of whom would describe the tossing of the ball in different ways because of their perspective.

This example has NOTHING to do with the idea of a person who projects a subjective feeling on the event, and who believes that the ball is holy or that keeping the ball in motion is necessary to preserve the universe intact!

Fanthorpe then goes on to toss in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. He didn't seem to get it that, yes, Schrodinger's Cat can be dead or not dead until observed, but once OBSERVED, he is either dead or not dead; until it becomes a fact, it is not a fact, but once it has become a fact, you can't change it!

Fanthorpe seems to think that facts can be changed AFTER they are observed - and he certainly works very hard to make sure that this is the case in this book. Using Fanthorpe's reasoning, you could justify selling anything as a "fact."

Don't waste your money. Fanthorpe's "subjective feelings and inner experiences" are what you are buying, and they aren't worth two cents.

This book does have curious information and even some interesting observations but egads! The book is meandering, ill-focused, disdainful of others 'methods' and darn near unreadable!
A Priest - one could almost imagine Lionel's veins popping in righteous indignation with his smirking dismissive of the 'the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' researchers while He and his wife sew together a hodge-podge of theories, beliefs and plain flights of fancy into an incoherent pastiche that puts a whole new slant on 'faith-based' reasoning.
Its clear that the authors did a lot of on-site research, they may actually have a lot of information but getting it out of this book is like shifting through the sands of the Sahara to get a few nuggets.

I've read over a dozen books on the Rennes-le-Château mystery, and this one has the dubious honor of being the absolute worst of the lot. If you're interested in Rennes, any other book on the subject would be a better place to start. However, if you're interested in reading the Fanthorpes spin Christian apologetics, half-baked theories based on little or no evidence, and bash other authors, then this is the book for you. Instead, I would suggest Markale's "The Church of Mary Magdelene", Picknett and Prince's "The Templar Revelation", Douzet and Coppens' "The Secret Vault", or pretty much any of Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh's books (which the Fanthorpes are so fond of trashing - Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh may have been steered down some wrong paths, but hey, at least they attempted to do their homework). Seriously, don't bother with this book.

I think there is more to this book than meets the eye. Read the appendices re umberto eco.