A more detailed treatise on this can be found here however here are the bullet points:
Jean Luc Robin had supposedly said in his book that Philippe de Chèrisey had admitted to him that he had made up the parchments.
Here is the piece in Robin's book where he says he admitted it:
"When I returned to Rennes-les-Bains in 1961 and learned that, following the
death of the Abbé, the Marie of Rennes-le-Chateau had burned down (along with
all its archives), I took advantage of the opportunity to invent the story that
the Mayor had an exact copy made of the Parchments that the Abbé had discovered.
And so, at the suggestion of Francis Blanche, I set myself the task of making a
copy employing a code based on some passages from the Gospels, and then decoding
what I had just encoded. Finally, by a roundabout route, I delivered the fruits
of my labours to Gerard de Sède. This document has had a life of its own beyond
my wildest dreams."
Quoted from Jean Luc Robin's "La Colline Envoutee" (Guy Tredaniel, 1982)
The archives were not destroyed in the fire. Three notarised documents were sent to Lloyds bank in 1954 and it is admitted that these genealogy documents do exist. How come these weren't destroyed?
But look what de Cherisey said here:
"I set myself the task of making a copy employing a code based on some passages from the Gospels, and then decoding what I had just encoded."
HE MADE A COPY. A COPY OF WHAT? AN ORIGINAL? Notice he didn't say he made a new parchment. de Cherisey is implying here that there were genuine documents and he knew about them.
He decoded what he just encoded?
But we know that he didn't know how the code worked. See Here
"I delivered the fruits of my labours to Gerard de Sède."
But de Sède has put the decoding method in his book Le Tresor Maudit and got it completely wrong.
Something is wrong here.
Here is an extract from 'The Key to the Sacred Pattern by Henry Lincoln describing a meeting with Philippe de Cherisey. (pp154)
"The day is ending, but it is fine. De Cherisey expresses a desire to take a stroll and a lengthy preambulation end on a bench in the Tuileries Gardens. He is still regaling me with well told - and often very funny - anecdotes. But I have more on my mind than entertainment. We are getting on well and the atmosphere is friendly. At last, with time passing and nothing to lose, I decide to put my request baldly. 'Can I take another look at the parchment photographs?' With only minimal hesitation, he opens his briefcase and hands them to me. 'Why add the marks' I ask 'To amuse the laity' he replied 'But why?' I insist. He shrugs 'I'm an entertainer.' It is clear that I am to get no straight answers. But - perhaps simply because it was to hand - he adds another fragment. Picking a few sheets from his case, he says: 'I'm writing an explanation of the codes. I'll send you a copy. You'll be amused' But I am never to see it. 1 Nor am I ever to get any closer to the 'parchment originals'. Sadly Philippe de Cherisey died suddenly in July 1985.
1 There is reason to suspect that this document may have been part of the haul of stolen Priory papers' which figured in the Chaumeil imbroglio"
END OF QUOTE
Here is Philippe de Chèrisey talking to Henry Lincoln in 1984 and yet de Cherisey had already admitted to Jean Luc Robin in 1982 that he copied the parchments and Robin had already made it public in his book "La Colline Envoutee" . Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln had researchers and many many readers and are French speakers themselves, how come this so-called confession by de Cherisey never got to them? But Lincoln talks about de Cherisey making an explanation of the codes in 1984. Why; De Sède had already explained how the codes work (wrongly actually) in his book Le Tresor Maudit? Why did de Cherisey see the need to explain it again to Lincoln? Was it because he noticed that de Sède had got it wrong? And why did de Sède get it wrong anyway, the decoding technique had supposedly come from de Chèrisey? Why didn't de Chèrisey say that de Sède had got it wrong to Lincoln and why is it still wrong in Chaumeil's Stone and Paper?
Plantard ONLY admitted in court in 1993 that he didn't have proof that Pelat was the Prieuré de Sion Grand Master.
At no point has Pierre Plantard de St Clair EVER admitted that he made the whole thing up.
One thing that seems to get passed over by Priory of Sion detractors is who were the Grand Masters between 1963 and 1981. The Dossiers Secret show the last Grand Master as Jean Cocteau and they only show the year he was elected not the year he died. Why if Pierre Plantard was trying to project himself as the POS Grand Master didn't he put himself onto the list? But Cocteau died in 1963 and we know that Pierre Plantard claims he wasn't elected until 1981. So who were the Grand Masters for the 18 intervening years?
Apparently we are told that it was a triumvirate of Gaylord Freeman, Pierre Plantard and Antonio Merzagora. This information did not come from Plantard it came from an article, an apparently doctored text, written in a French Magazine Bonne Soirée. It had been doctored from a text written by one of the BBC's researchers for their programme The Shadow of the Templars. After the researcher's article had been translated into French there were a few additions and a copy was sent to the programme's producer at the BBC who for some reason did not mention it to Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln. It was Philippe de Chèrisey no less who eventually told them about the article and sent them a French translation. This occurred in 1981, the year Plantard is supposed to have been elected and his election had been reported in the French press.
Apparently Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln had been told that an Abbé François Ducaud-Bourget had been the Grand Master, but he denied it. de Chèrisey had that he not been elected "by a full quorum" and had disqualified himself anyway.
A brief biography of Abbé Ducaud-Bourget can be found here:
Here is an extract.
François Ducaud-Bourget was born in 1897 and trained for the priesthood at—predictably enough—the Seminary of Saint Sulpice. He is thus likely to have known many of the Modernists there at the time—and, quite possibly, Emile Hoffet. Subsequently he was the conventual's chaplain of the Sovereign Order of Malta. For his activities during the Second World War he received the Resistance Medal and the Croix de Guerre. Today he is recognized as a distinguished man of letters—a member of the Académie Française, a biographer of important French Catholic writers such as Paul Claudel and François Mauriac, and a highly esteemed poet in his own right.
Like Monsignor Lefebvre the Abbé Ducaud-Bourget assumed a stance of militant opposition to Pope Paul VI. Like Monsignor Lefebvre he is an adherent of the Tridentine Mass. Like Monsignor Lefebvre he has proclaimed himself a "traditionalist" adamantly opposed to ecclesiastical reform or any attempt to "modernize" Roman Catholicism. On May 22, 1976, he was forbidden to administer confession or absolution—and like Monsignor Lefebvre he boldly defied the interdict imposed on him by his superiors. On February 27, 1977, he led a thousand Catholic traditionalists in their occupation of the Church of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet in Paris.
The bottom line here is why the confusion?
If it was all made up by Plantard, de Chèrisey and de Sède why the incoherency here when everything else seems to be well researched and presented well? Why didn't Plantard simply place himself at the end of list after Cocteau's death?
Here's a quote from The Messianic Legacy written by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln that may clear things up (or not):
Perhaps the most important person to the doctored text of _____ article was a quote from an individual cited only as 'Lord Blackford' ______ had never interviewed him, never met him, never even heard of him. As amended, however, her text stated that she had done all three:
"A few years ago, I was able to have an interview with one of the 121 high-ranking members of the Prieuré de Sion, the Honourable Lord Blackford."
In the statement ascribed to him which follows Blackford appears unusually knowledgable[sic], as well as unusually forthcoming, about the Prieuré de Sion. He even hints at a potentially major schism within the Order dating 1955 or 1956.
"An association called the Prieuré de Sion was indeed constituted in France around 1956, with specific objectives. It had a legal existence, it was registered in the Journal officiel, it was dissolved after the events in France of 1958, when Plantard de saint Clair was secretary General of the Committees for Public Safety. This new organisation of 1956 reflected an internal crisis in the venerable Sion Prioratus, founded around 1099 in Jerusalem. It was the reforms of Jean Cocteau in 1955 which caused the creation [of a new organisation] by denying members of the Order their anonymity. At the time, all members were compelled to furnish a birth certificate and a notarised signature. A necessity perhaps....but an infringement of freedom.
One of Paul Smith's gurus Bernardo Sanchez de Motta says that not only did de Cherisey make up the parchments1 but he also altered the Blanchefort tombstone Here's what he said:
"After I investigated all these tracks and of presented the facts most excellent, on the picture of Poussin, "the Shepherds of the Arcadia", do not have great thing to add to the fact of that we are before a work of art of master. It is not possible, and it will never be possible, to have the certainty of that Poussin not even planeou the pentagram geometric structure that Prof. Cornford "He discovered"2, if he thought nalgum type of geometric structure. In Shugborough Hall we find some indications of an interest had in times for the painting of Poussin and Teniers, and nothing more. The drawing of the rock to tumular horizontal of the last Countess of Blanchefort certifies the malice of its author well, Philippe de Chérisey, without scruples3 in relation to modify a previous drawing, thus propagating an adulterated version4. In this version of Chérisey the alterations for it are well clear introduced, that they proposed to induce a linking of the mystery of Rennes to the painting of Poussin and, possibly, the Shugborough Hall, that would serve as "misleading reinforcement"5 Concluding, the linking of Rennes the Poussin and Teniers was suggested to the public opinion through the book of journalist Gérard de Sède, "L'Or de Rennes", where the fantasy history of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Chérisey, having been consists for the first time this last author of the text of false parchments and the adulterated drawing of the rock to tumular horizontal."
Such are the fantasies of the Rennes Mystery detractors.