It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Merovingian Kings usurped by Charlemagne and Pope Leo III

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

Any thoughts on the purported sacred geometry of the Rennes region, and any connection to Berenger Sauniere and the 'pillar parchments'?

Hey, I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge, Nygdan.

Hi. Maybe i can throw something in here for you. It has been shown that the "pillar parchments" were fakes planted by B.S. and a friend of his to boost tourism for his failing resort. Seriously.

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 08:34 PM
donk, there was no resort so your whole argument dissolves.


I have a couple of questions:

1. Why did you introduce Brown into an intelligent discussion?

2. Have you read The Merovingian Kingdoms: 450-751 by Ian Wood?

3. And if so or not, are you attempting to say that the work referenced in #2 is for naught and part of what you are implying was "bad sources" used by Brown?

4. And if 3 is not the case, what do you think of this work?

Brown has no place in this discussion by the way. I would not think for one moment Icarus was writing on this subject because of a piece of fiction.

posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 10:29 PM
That's right. I'm not driven by fiction to speculate on history. I'm driven by history to speculate on what may be fiction. There are still some unexplained connections between the bloodline of Christ and the first crusade, and smack in the middle of it all is Rennes le Chateau, and the Languedoc region of France.

My family name has its origins in the Languedoc. When I found that out, I was already deeply interested in the mystery.

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 07:34 AM
Icarus, have you read Ian Woods' book? It is quite comprehensive. You have made me pull it off the shelf after almost 10 years - you stinker!
I might start re-reading it just to be able to discuss this topic at your level - HA!

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 08:14 AM
I don't know about that, Val. Your previous threads on Rennes le Chateau have done lots to flesh out my understanding. I especially liked the discussion of the symbolism in the artwork.

This thread is a little more speculative, and I am reaching a bit trying to tie some things together, and I don't have nearly the links and references I need to back it up. There is a connection, I think, between the heirs of Christ and the Merovingians and the Cathars, and Rennes le Chateau. It's secrets lay shrouded in the ancient mists of the late history of the Roman Empire, and the early history of the Roman Catholic Church.

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 10:29 AM
Much of the problem is that the period in question is smack dab in the middle of the "Dark Ages". Much of what we know of that period comes from limited sources who may or may not have had an agenda of their own to write down as history. Some have made the claim that the "dark ages" were intentionallly made "dark" by the powers that were at the time. The truth, as always is probably somewhere in the middle of all the theories being put forth.

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:17 AM

I'm going to start posting a narrative that walks through Wood's book. What I'm going to do is center on bloodline connections and religious issues that could play into what you are researching. All information will be taken from:

Wood, Ian, The Merovingian Kingdoms: 450-751, Longman, New York, 1994.

That will serve as my citation, all information to follow will be from that source. It's my hope that getting this information in one place for you will at least help you find a path for further research on this topic.


The first thing we have to note in considering motive for the usurpation of a Merovinginian King's rule by the Church is that in the region encompassed by the Merovingian rule included that of the Visigoths. This is important because the Visigoths were arian Christians who held that the Trinity was hierarchical and that God, the Son and the Holy Ghost were not equal. (1) The arian christianity of the region was long viewed by the Catholic church as a "poison" that could infect the catholics in western Europe.

Now the emergence of the Merovingian dynasty is placed right at 450 based on the defeat of Chlodio which is believed to have taken place in 448. The mythos surrounding the origins of the supernatural Merovingian bloodline begins with Chlodio's wife who was rumored to have become impregnated by a Quinotaur while swimming. The offspring of this supernatural union would be Merovech, the first of the "long-haired kings". (2)

The throne of Merovech passed to his son Childeric I. The Franks eventually exiled Childeric because of his apparently widespread sexual activity and it is in his exile that we find the first verifiable connection to Thuringia for that is where he fled. While there he married the wife of the former Thuringian King, Bisinus. On their wedding night she instructed him to look out the window and he is reported to have had a vision representing their future descendants. He saw lions, unicorns, and leopards, then bears and wolves, and lastly dogs. The interpretation of the vision was that it represented the continual degeneration of the Merovingian bloodline that would occur. (3)

It is generally accepted that Childeric was a pagan with this conclusion being based on the findings within his burial site. It is worth noting that there were several symbolic items buried with him (all of which were in good repair when the burial site was found in 1653 but were later stolen away and have remained lost since the nineteenth century). Included in these items, many of which are believed to be highly symbolic, were numerous gold bees and cicadas. These were believed to have been adornments for: a cloak, a golden bull's head, and a signet-ring. Another item found was Childeric's sword. The garnet work found on the sword was a specialty of the Franks. And then finally, Childeric's brooch was of the style that was common to "high-standing imperial" officers. The brooch along with a large cache of Byzantine coins could be taken as indicative of a connection between Childeric and Constantinople. (4)

Childeric's heir to the throne was Clovis (keeping in mind that this now brings a clear Thuringian connection to the Merovingian throne via Clovis' mother). Clovis married Chlothild, the daughter of the Burgundian king, Chilperic II, bringing in yet another connection to the Merovinginian dynasty. It is of importance to note that Chlothild tried to convert Clovis to catholicism, but reportedly failed. But upon the eve of a major battle, Clovis vowed that if he was victorious, he would convert to christianity. After winning the battle he was baptized. (5)

Clovis's conversion to catholicism is of extreme importance. If one sticks with Gregory's account of the conversion, it appears that Clovis converted immediately and completely to Catholicism abandoning his paganism and never considering arian teachings. However, Avitus implies that Clovis may have converted to arian christianity. This is not a claim that can be quickly dismissed, and could be of utmost importance when analyzing the relationship between the Merovingian throne and the Catholic church. Clovis's sister Lienteld had, in fact, converted to arianism. And it is speculated that his other sister, Audofleda, who had married Theodoric the Great, Ostrogothic ruler over Italy, could have very easily been exposed to the arian teachings in the environs of Theodoric's court. (6) Therefore, it is of utmost importance that we leave open the possibility that the Merovingian Franks could have been arians. In fact, it is a matter of record that members of Clovis's court did, in fact, convert to arianism. (7)

Clovis had four heirs. Theuderic was not Chlothild's son, but had been conceived in an earlier union of which little is known. Upon Clovis's death the kingdom was split four ways between the sons. Theuderic ruled over the Rheims, Chlodomer (son of Clothild) ruled over Orleans, Childebert I (son of Clothild) ruled over Paris and Chlothar I (son of Clothild) ruled over Soissons. ( 8 )

Around 531 a disagreement occurred between Theuderic and Hermanfrid, King of Thuringia. Enlisting the help of his half-brother Chlothar, Theuderic invaded Thuringia and it was at this time that Thuringia was annexed into the Merovingian kingdom. (9) Chlodomer was eventually killed by Godomar of the Burgundians. Godomar took over rule of Chlodomer's region of the Merovingian kingdom in approximately 524 and held it for ten years until Chlodomer's brothers, Childebert and Chlothar overthrew him and divided the region into their portions of the kingdom. But of utmost importance here is that when Godomar was defeated, the Merovinginians had taken Burgundy as well as Chlodomer's former territories. (10)

1. page 18
2. page 37, there are writings that suggest one could claim Chlodio as the first of the long-haired kings, but this claim would be tenuous at best basing itself on a claim by the bishop of Tours that the Franks had created long-haired kings in Thuringia which was an area around modern day Weimar. The disconnect that comes with this claim is that it is well established Chlodio ruled in Dispargum and while Gregory places Dispargum in Thuringia many historians place Dispargum around modern day Belgium. It is a more plausible idea that Gregory's assumption was based on the fact that later Childeric would be exiled to Thuringia where he would marry before returning to claim his right to the Merovingian throne.
3. page 39
4. page 40
5. page 41
6. pages 44-45
7. page 48
8. page 50
9. page 50
10. pages 53-54

[edit on 11-11-2006 by Valhall]

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 10:51 AM
Theuderic I's heir was Theudebert who inherited Rheims. Theudebert did not have an heir at the time of his death eight years after inheriting his portion of the kingdom and his region was handed over to Chlothar. In 558 the same situation occurred with Childebert dying without an heir and Chlothar taking on his region of the kingdom. With Childebert's death Chlothar became the sole ruler over the Merovingian kingdom. Chlothar had four sons and upon his death the kingdom was divided once more between them. Charibert I took Paris, Guntram took Orleans, Sigibert I took Rheims and Chilperic I took Soissons. In 567 Charibert I died without an heir and even though his region was divided between his three surviving brothers, disagreements over certain cities that had been in Charibert's territory would cause disagreements for years to come. (11)

It should be inserted here that the "supernatural nature" of the Merovinginian dynasty was not solely attached to the birth of Merovech I. In the panegyrical writings of Venantius Fortunatus Childebert I is compared to the motherless and fatherless Priest of no beginning and no end in the Old Testament, Melchisedek. The mysterious High Priest of which Christ himself is said to be the incarnation. (12)

Sigibert I's heir was Childebert II. When Guntram died Childebert II took over his region uniting Rheims (also called Austrasia) and Orleans (also called Burgundy). Chilperic's heir was Chlothar II, son of Fredegund. (There was also one Gundovald, referred to as the Pretender who claimed to be Chlothar's son and challenged the throne a couple of times, but died unsuccessful in this attempt...although the implications of his claim were far reaching.) (13) Now of note is that even though Chilperic had already inherited his father's region at Soissons at the time of Guntram's death, he was not included in any division of that region formerly held by his uncle. Instead it all went to Sigibert's heir Childebert II. Apparently this exclusion of Chilperic's heir was tied to an agreement made in the Treaty of Andelot signed in 587, five years before Guntram's death. (14) Chilperic I also had a daughter, Rigunth, who took a husband in Spain. (15) Chilperic also had a son Merovech with a woman named Audovera. Merovech challenged his father's reign, but ended up killing himself upon his failed attempt. (16)

Childebert II had two sons, Theudebert II and Theuderic II. Prior to Childebert II's death, and even prior to Guntram's death, Theudebert II was given a "sub-kingdom" which included the cities of Soissons and Meaux. After childebert II's death Theudebert II further received Austrasia (Rheims) and Theuderic II received Burgundy (Orleans). Theudebert and Theuderic joined forces against Chilperic's heir Chlothar II and invaded his lands ultimately leaving him with only Beauvais, Amiens and Rouen. Shortly thereafter Theuderic turned on his brother Theudebert. Committing to Chlothar II that he would return the duchy of Dentelin to him in exchange for Chlothar's neutrality, Theuderic defeated Theudebert and killed him and his sons. Burgundy and Austrasia had now been reunited under Theuderic's rule, but in short order he died of dysentary and his kingdom was left to his four small sons. The children's grandmother, Brunhild attempted to push one of the children, Sigibert II, as the heir to Theuderic's throne, but her attempts were unsuccessful. Brunhild and all the children except one son, Merovech, were killed and the kingdom was once again reunited under the rule of Chlothar II. (17)

11. page 57
12. page 67
13. page 90
14. page 58
15. page 63
16. page 90
17. page 58

[edit on 11-11-2006 by Valhall]

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:02 PM

I took a break from the narrative to create a Family Tree for the Merovingian bloodline. Maybe this will help. Please let me know if this link does not work correctly.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 01:43 AM
I don't see Jesus on that list anywhere

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 09:09 AM
Thanks for the fascinating background, Val. I'm still trying to piece the succession together, and the narrative combined with the genealogy is very helpful.

As to the "supernatural" nature of the Merovingians, the healing by laying on of hands, clairvoyance or ESP, communication with animals and beasts of the field, etc., I find it incredible that Childebert I, several generations into the dynasty, would have his name attached to

In the panegyrical writings of Venantius Fortunatus Childebert I is compared to the motherless and fatherless Priest of no beginning and no end in the Old Testament, Melchisedek.

It is the first I have heard anywhere of another figure besides Christ himself being placed on the same plane with Melchizedek. Abraham paid tribute to Melchizedek in the form of a tenth of all his spoils from his victory over the kings in Genesis.

The meeting is mentioned in detail in Hebrews 7:1-7

1: For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2: To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3: Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4: Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5: And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7: And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

I find this comparison very significant indeed.

posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 09:23 AM
Yep, it made my jaw drop when I read it. That a religious writer would make that comparison to any person (irrespective of their position) is not easily explained.

That's why I made sure it was included in my post.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 08:23 PM
What strikes me about Melchizedek, of course, is he definitely represents an ancient culture held in high esteem that predates Abraham and Judeo-Christianity and Islam. Abraham, in fact, showed fealty to Melchizedek in the form of his tithe from the spoils of the kings. Could the Merovingians be connected to the culture of Melchizedek?

The fact that Christ was associated with him as a "High Priest of the order of Melchizedek" shows that the New Covenant In Him is meant to transcend the Old Covenant of the Mosaic Law, as well as the blessings and promises God made to Abraham that were passed down to Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh.

I've asked this question before, in my thread on the Davidic line leading to the Virgin Mary in the form of the birthright, but what of the blessings and promises that seem to have been lost after Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manesseh? We know that Joseph was Jacob's favored child, and had the blessings and the promises intended for him, signified by the "technicolor dreamcoat", prior to being sold into Egyptian slavery only to begin the reign of the Semitic Kings of Egypt after the fall of the Middle Kingdom.

Something is being deliberately hidden in history on this point, imo. I believe the blessings and promises will return to play a pivotal role somehow in the transition to the New Kingdom. Perhaps the ancient culture of Melchizedek will also. The role of the Levitical Priesthood was lost with the destruction of the second Temple, which included the loss of the genealogies governing priestly succession.

I am really reaching now. Any input on these tangents to this thread would be greatly appreciated.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 08:37 PM
With that awesome post, let me ask you what you think about the "Everlasting Covenant" God made with Abraham.

I'd like to know what you think of that and the fact it's still everlasting.

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:10 PM
The Bible records Christ speaking of this in Matthew 5:17-20

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I think the message here is the Pharisees had become consumed with the Temple sacrifices as a matter of routine, and used the letter of the law as a means to condemn others and maintain their control. In this way they had effectively perverted the Mosaic Law, and made it a thing of man, not of God.

Christ meant to return them to a devotion to God, not routine, and a practice of the spirit of the law, giving life, not condemnation. They were having none of it, either.

I believe the Old Covenant blessings and promises are still in effect, but under the New Covenant, and they are extended to all, with Christ as our intercessor, not the Levitical Priests.

Taken from yesterday's Bible study

The very nature of the Old Covenant sacrifices made them inferior. The annual Day of Atonement did not accomplish remission but only reminder. The nation's sins were covered, but they were not cleansed. The blood of bulls and goats could cover sin and postpone judgment, but it could never effect a once and for all redemption.

Christ's sacrifice was complete and eternally effective, theirs was ongoing and futile. As a result of Jesus' willing sacrifice, people who trust Him for salvation are forgiven.

However, the Jews do not recognize Christ as the Messiah, so I guess they are still waiting for their salvation. I don't know.

All I can say for me is, the Temple veil is rent in two from top to bottom, and the Blood of the Lamb has taken me into the Holy of Holies. I am truly blessed, and completely unworthy. "Take the coal, cleanse my lips, here I am." There is no going back.

Hebrews 10:16-18

10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

As Christ said on the cross, "It is finished."

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 08:10 AM
I may have missed it, but I didn't see any mention of the three Merovingian rulers Dagobert I II and III. It is written that number two was the last Merovingian to hold any real power in France. He seems to have been deliberately omitted from many historical records, if my sources are right. What I read was he died from an arrow to the head, an alleged hunting accident rumoured to have really been a case of murder and that his skull is still around. Some religious group is supposed to have it. But my main question is why has no one yet mentioned him? He did have descendents, though his son at the time of his demise was apparently taken away and hidden for his own safety. After II's death, there was a void which was quickly filled by Charlemagne's grandfather, I believe.

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 08:25 AM
I have heard the story of the "hunting accident", as well. So far this thread has focused on the transfer of power to the Franks and the RCC, not on what became of the Merovingian line.

I haven't heard much about descendants of Dagobert III being hidden for their own protection, but it makes sense, seeing the usurpers wouldn't want to leave any loose ends that might come back to haunt them.

Again, as mentioned before, maybe that was what the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars, and partly the Inquisition, were about.

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 08:34 AM
From my reading, the Albigensian crusade was more about squashing a legitimate threat to the power of the RCC. The Cathars were a very compelling bunch, growing fast, and teaching many things contrary to what the RCC was teaching. Things like women were allowed to be priests, lay people did not need a priest to talk to God, church leaders should eschew shows of wealth, avoid adultery, and only drink in moderation. But the main reason they were trounced was that they had a good thing going. They were popular, sophisticated, educated, and growing fast. The RCC couldn't have that.

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 09:41 AM
Interesting to note that the Cathars rose from the same region, relatively, that the Merovingians previously ruled. Their open, liberal, sophisticated society is much as I envision society under Merovingian rule. I could, of course, be wrong about that. The Celts were known for the same kind of decentralized, individual-empowering society, as well.

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I have heard the story of the "hunting accident", as well. So far this thread has focused on the transfer of power to the Franks and the RCC, not on what became of the Merovingian line.

I mentioned Dagobert II because I felt his 'accident' was a key event in the transfer of power. The elimination of the only Merovingian left who had enough power to retain the crown made the transfer much more attainable.
As for the literature on the origins of the Merovingians, I find it very intriguing, and do not discount any possibilities regarding their ancestry.
I've read much on the crusades, Mary Magdalene, Rennes-Les-Chateaux, the Templars, the Cathars, the Shroud, Arthurian lore, the grail, Rosslyn Chapel, Henry Sinclair, Oak Island, and the holy bloodline theories, etc. There is definitely something there. I can see a thread running through, and linking, all of those topics.
Though the RCC had many reasons to destroy the Cathars besides the possibility that they possessed some profound relic or knowledge which the church sought, I won't discount the chance that the crusade was a 'treasure hunt'.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in