Talk:Sigebert IV

Did Sigebert IV exist?

A question to all editors who have contributed to this article: Are there any reliable sources that confirm that Sigebert IV of Raze even existed? --Loremaster (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there are'nt. Pierre Plantard recognize that it was an hoax. Odejea (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've always known that the claim “Sigebert IV of Raze survived and perpetuated the Merovingian dynasty” was part of Plantard's Priory of Sion hoax. However, my question is whether or not this individual was even born? I ask because of the following passage from the pseudohistorical book Holy Blood, Holy Grail:

The Exclusion of Dagobert II from History

With the murder of Dagobert II in 679 the Merovingian dynasty effectively ended. With the death of Childeric III in 755 the Merovingians seemed to vanish from the stage of world history completely. According to the “Prieure documents’, however, the Merovingian bloodline in fact survived. According to the “Prieure documents’, it was perpetuated to the present day, from the infant Sigisbert IV Dagobert’s son by his second wife, Giselle de Razes. There is no question that Sigisbert existed and that he was Dagobert’s heir. According to all sources other than the “Prieure documents’, however, it is unclear what happened to him. Certain chroniclers have tacitly assumed that he was murdered along with his father and other members of the royal family. One highly dubious account asserts that he died in a hunting accident a year or two before his father’s death. If that is true Sigisbert must have been a precocious hunter, for he cannot possibly have been much more than three years old at the time. There is no record whatever of Sigisbert’s death. Nor is there any record apart from the evidence in the “Prieure documents’ of his survival. The whole issue seems to have been lost in “the mists of time’, and no one seems to have been much concerned about it except, of course, for the Prieure de Sion.

In any case Sion appeared to be privy to certain information which was not available elsewhere; or was deemed of too little consequence to warrant much investigation; or was deliberately suppressed. It is hardly surprising that no account of Sigisbert’s fate has been filtered down to us. There was no publicly accessible account even of Dagobert until the seventeenth century. At some point during the Middle Ages a systematic attempt was apparently made to erase Dagobert from history, to deny that he ever existed. Today Dagobert II can be found in any encyclopedia. Until 1646, however, there was no acknowledgment whatever that he had ever lived. Any list or genealogy of French rulers compiled before 1646 simply omits him, jumping (despite the flagrant inconsistency) from Dagobert I to Dagobert III one of the last Merovingian monarchs, who died in 715. And not until 1655 was Dagobert II reinstated in accepted lists of French kings. Given this process of eradication, we were not unduly astonished at the dearth of information relating to Sigisbert. And we could not but suspect that whatever information did exist had been deliberately suppressed.

But why, we wondered, should Dagobert II have been excised from history? What was being concealed by such an excision? Why should one wish to deny the very existence of a man? One possibility, of course, is to negate thereby the existence of his heirs. If Dagobert never lived, Sigisbert cannot have lived either. But why should it have been important, as late as the seventeenth century, to deny that Sigisbert had ever lived? Unless he had indeed survived, and his descendants were still regarded as a threat. It seemed to us that we were clearly dealing with some sort of ‘cover-up’. Quite patently there were vested interests which had something of import to lose if knowledge of Sigisbert’s survival were made public. In the ninth century and perhaps as late as the Crusades, these interests would seem to have been the Roman Church and the French royal line. But why should the issue have continued to matter as late as the age of Louis XIV? It would surely have been an academic point by then, for three French dynasties had come and gone, while Protestantism had broken Roman hegemony. Unless there was indeed something very special about the Merovingian blood. Not ‘magical properties’, but something else -something that retained its explosive potency even after superstitions about magical blood had fallen by the wayside.

Prince Guillem de Gellone, Comte de Razes

According to the “Prieure documents’, Sigisbert IV, on the death of his father, was rescued by his sister and smuggled southwards to the domain of his mother the Visigoth princess, Giselle de Razes. He is said to have arrived in the Languedoc in 681 and, at some point shortly thereafter, to have adopted or inherited his uncle’s titles, duke of Razes and count of Rhedae. He is also said to have adopted the surname, or nickname, of “Plant-Ard’ (subsequently Plantard) from the appellation ‘rejeton ardent’ ‘ardently flowering shoot’ of the Merovingian vine. Under this name, and under the titles acquired from his uncle, he is said to have perpetuated his lineage. And by 886 one branch of that lineage is said to have culminated in a certain Bernard Plantavelu apparently derived from Plant-and or Plantard whose son became the first duke of Aquitaine.

As far as we could ascertain, no independent historian either confirmed or disputed these assertions. The whole matter was simply ignored. But the circumstantial evidence argued persuasively that Sigisbert did indeed survive to perpetuate his lineage. The assiduous eradication of Dagobert from history lends credence to this conclusion. By denying his existence, any line of descent from him would have been invalidated. This constitutes a motive for an otherwise inexplicable action. Among the other fragments of evidence is a charter, dated 718, which pertains to the foundation of a monastery a few miles from Rennes-le-Chateau by “Sigebert, Comte de Rhedae and his wife, Magdala’. Apart from this charter nothing is heard of the Rhedae or Razes titles for another century.

--Loremaster (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure - I don't know much about the hoax to begin with. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary

Question: What does Otto von Habsburg's title Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary have anything to do with the Priory of Sion Hoax? When is it mentioned by Plantard? Plantard claimed the PoS was founded by Godfrey de Bouillon in Jerusalem, and Otto von Habsburg was Titular King of Jerusalem, Plantard had an interest in the United States of Europe, and Otto von Habsburg was the Honorary President of the Pan-European Union. Lung salad (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Readers not familiar with with Otto von Habsburg should at least know that he was crown prince of Austria-Hungary. It would be like mentioning Bill Clinton without specifiying that he was President of the United States. That being said, all other details about Otto von Habsburg that explain why Plantard choose him are not important in an article that should focus on Sigebert IV. So the best compromise is to avoid mentioning any of Otto's numerous titles. --Loremaster (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we should not mix factual history with fantasy history - France declared war on Austria-Hungary in 1914 leading to the outbreak of World War One. Things get even more complicated when the fantasy history gets even more convoluted in the process of added revisions. Lung salad (talk)

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about but I think we have resolved this dispute, right? --Loremaster (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

On 12 August 1914 France declared war on Austria-Hungary Lung salad (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that... What does have to do with the dispute about whether or not to mention Otto's titles in this article? --Loremaster (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Was the title part of the hoax? Lung salad (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No but the title doesn't have to be part of the hoax to mention it. Like I said before, you wouldn't mention Bill Clinton in any Wikipedia article without specifying that he was President of the United States to distinguish him from other Bill Clintons that exist in the world. --Loremaster (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So why also edit out (half a sentence) the titles that are pertinent to the hoax? Lung salad (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Because discussion of the Priory of Sion hoax in the article should focus elements regarding Sigebert IV not Otto. --Loremaster (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was Otto selected to be part of the hoax? Lung salad (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't matter here. This article is not about Otto or the Priory of Sion hoax. It's about Sigebert IV and claims about him in the Priory of Sion hoax. Explaining why Otto was selected to be part of the hoax here is irrelevant. Such information is only relevant in either the Otto von Habsburg article or the Priory of Sion hoax article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand the significance of Sigebert IV? Do you understand? Lung salad (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. What's your point? --Loremaster (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand. Plantard claimed Otto during his lifetime was the direct descendant of Sigebert, making them both equally important figures in this subject matter Lung salad (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. However, you need to find a reliable source that says that Plantard claimed that Otto was the direct descendant of Sigebert because he was XYZ. If not, such information is not only speculative but is only relevant in either the Otto von Habsburg article or the Priory of Sion hoax article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been in the footnotes to this and the Priory of Sion article for about 6 months. "If anyone can claim to be a descendant of Sigisbert IV in the direct line it can only be Otto von Habsburg, and he alone" Lung salad (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the article to add more relevant information about the link between Sigebert and Otto. Can we move on? --Loremaster (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Some think that he was the founder of the Habsburg family

This is a reference to the contents in Chaumeil's book, who in 1979 only knew about Sigibert IV, and that's who he was referring to at that stage. When Plantard revised his genealogies in 1990 he used material from Chaumeil's book but also invented Sigibert I, the ancestor of Otto von Habsburg. Plantard was still claiming descent from Sigibert IV Lung salad (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Sigebert I Lung salad (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the content you added is very confusing. It needs to be edited for clarity. --Loremaster (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The differences between the two Sigebert's needs to be explained. Lung salad (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is that you are not explaining it well. --Loremaster (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not everything has to be dumbed-down Lung salad (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with “dumbing-down” and actually everything to do with writing a sentence that is coherent and understandable. In other words, you need to improve your writing skills and respect Wikipedia's manual of style. --Loremaster (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)