It is noticeable these days that interest in the Affair of the Two Rennes has waned significantly, unless of course you happen to be writing banal fiction for the hungry masses who love a conspiracy theory. I came across a very interesting piece by a writer who expressed the same opinion. I quote here from their site:

"The sites and forums on Rennes le Chateau are today much less frequented than in the past and this decline, this noticeable decrease in attention, is noticeable not only in Italian but also foreign sites. In fact, this declining interest in the subject, this sudden "decline of desire", seems to be the result of a tiring as well as a useless digression on some points - certainly not clear - of the story and the consequent unleashing of many controversies, in particular in the regard to the "falsity" - true or presumed - of the two parchments [of the Affair] as they appeared in the old book by Gerard de Sede (L'or de Rennes).

Too much was given on the insistence on the part of some Italian and foreign researchers (Tomatis, Jannaccone, Introvigne, Smith, etc.) in attempting to demonstrate, at all costs, the unreliability of the contents and / or the material falsity of the parchments and, with this, an attempt was made to definitively close the story, turning off the spotlight on it, reducing it all to a skilful mystification (the French say intoxication) hatched by Plantard, Cherisey and their fellow followers in the Priory of Zion.

The two acclaimed findings of a few years ago are undoubtedly also going in this same direction: the first is the book from which the text used in the first parchment was copied, the Codex Bezae which was reproduced in the "Dictionnaire de la Bible" Tome 1: AB Editor: F.Vigouroux, Paris, 1895 "; and the second, concerning the text of the second parchment, allegedly taken from the book by John Wordsworth and Henry Julian White (ed.), Novum Testamentum Latine Secundum Editionem Sancti Hieronymi, Oxford (I ed. 1889, & 1950 edition). The last blow was then inflicted by the publication of the book "Pierre et Papier", which came out of the pen of the ineffable Marquis de Cherisey and given, posthumously, to the press by his [alleged faithful disciple Jean Luc Chaumeil who, with this publication, seems to want to sanction the definitive "falsity" of the parchments.

Furthermore, we must also consider the hammering postponement made by many, with a clear disparaging purpose, on unpleasant events - including judicial ones - relating to the private life of Plantard, in particular the Pelet affair heralded to the four winds as an example of admission of all the falsehoods that have been accomplished".

If i ever came across anything to justify the translation of all documents to help the English better understand the Affair, this is it. According to the writer is the following;"

"The direct reading of the passages of the text of the investigation drawn up by the investigating judge concerning him clarifies instead that it was not Plantard who wanted to present himself to the judge of his own free will - as claimed by some - but who was summoned after the complaint presented by one of his "competitors" (René-Roger Dagobert). Following a search carried out at the home of Pierre Plantards son Thomas, who was also heard by the judge as Grand Master of the Priory, and after the acquisition of a libretto ("un examplaire d'une revue titulée "Le Cercle"), Plantard made it very simply clear that Patrice Pelat had never been Grand Master of the Prieure de Sion. In reality, all this, it seems to me, was just an attempt to "re-veil" - that is, to spread a new veil - on the mystery of Rennes, [and] in fact it almost seems to want people to say: if everything is false it is useless to waste time on it!".

Our commentator then goes on to highlight various texts from the court case which casts a different light on the whole Pelet Affair.

Read more HERE