http://www.rlcresearch.com/2009/05/24/william-of-gellone/ All there is to know about the mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau. Sat, 20 Feb 2010 11:15:57 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://www.rlcresearch.com/2009/05/24/william-of-gellone/comment-page-1/#comment-6745 Robert Jan Kelder Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:24:27 +0000 http://www.rlcresearch.com/?p=2421#comment-6745 P.S. The unsubstantiated claim, first made by the writers of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", that Wolfram wrote that the Grail castle from his "Parzival" is to be found in the Pyrenees is nowhere to be found in Wolfram's work itself. Montségur was most probably in the 12th and 13th century a Grail castle, of which there were many, but not Wolfram's Grail Castle Munsalvaesche, which according to Greub's research was located in the Arlesheim Hermitage, an ancient Celtic holy place, near the Swiss town of Basle. Last point: the claim based on Dhuoda's Carolingian education manual for the upbringing of her son, that William of Gellone was still alive in 843, because of the "fact" that she does not mention him as one of the deceased family members, does not hold, because as I once mentioned to Greub, Dhuoda's manual does mention William as deceased. His laconic response was that then also this document must be a forgery... P.S. The unsubstantiated claim, first made by the writers of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”, that Wolfram wrote that the Grail castle from his “Parzival” is to be found in the Pyrenees is nowhere to be found in Wolfram’s work itself. Montségur was most probably in the 12th and 13th century a Grail castle, of which there were many, but not Wolfram’s Grail Castle Munsalvaesche, which according to Greub’s research was located in the Arlesheim Hermitage, an ancient Celtic holy place, near the Swiss town of Basle. Last point: the claim based on Dhuoda’s Carolingian education manual for the upbringing of her son, that William of Gellone was still alive in 843, because of the “fact” that she does not mention him as one of the deceased family members, does not hold, because as I once mentioned to Greub, Dhuoda’s manual does mention William as deceased. His laconic response was that then also this document must be a forgery…

]]> http://www.rlcresearch.com/2009/05/24/william-of-gellone/comment-page-1/#comment-6744 Robert Jan Kelder Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:02:18 +0000 http://www.rlcresearch.com/?p=2421#comment-6744 The writers mentioned who identify Kyot as Guillot de Provins are not from a theosophic, but an anthroposophic group around Rudolf Steiner. One of these writers is not Von Stein, but Walter Johannes Stein, writer of the book "The Ninth Century - History in the Light of the Holy Grail". None of them have done any orginal research into this specific Kyot question, in contrast to the anthroposophist Werner Greub, whose book on Wolfram von Eschenbach I have translated into English ("How The Grail Sites Were Found", new book version is in preparation) and also into Dutch ("Willem van Oranje, Parzival and the Grail"). None of them can bank (directly) on Rudolf Steiner's work in this case, because he only affirmed that this Kyot was a historical personnage and not a figment of Wolfram's teeming imagination as most scholars still tend to believe. But because Rudolf Steiner also stated that the Parzival story took place, not in the 12th but in the 9th century, Wolfram's source Master Kyot could not, in his eyes, haven been this Guillot, as he is a figure from the 12th century. The "notorious" book mentioned by Ravenscroft is not all a pack of lies, as some e.g. Christoph Lindenberg have maintained. Problem was that Ravenscroft originally wanted his book to be published as a dramatized version of the events described in it and not as a genuine historical work. The publishers however promoted it as such out of commercial grounds, which was apparently never the intention of the author. So e.g. Ravenscroft's claim that Rudolf Steiner acted as a medium between the deceased General von Moltke and his wife on earth, is vehemently denied by Lindenberg, actually a true statement in the ligh of documents that later appeared. In the appendix to my English translation of Greub's book on Wolfram, available on my webiste under Grail Sites, I have rebutted point for point the scathing critism that this Lindenberg in the same review leveled against Greub. Greub's book was actually meant as the first volume of a Grail trilogy from the age of Zarathustra to Rudolf Steiner, but the 2nd and 3rd volumes were never published by the Goetheanum in Dornach, the Free School for Spiritual Science, but many years later by Greub's son Dr. Marcus Greub. (Why this is, or may be, I have related in my introductions to the various editions to the Grail Sites book as can also be read on my website.) These two volumes contain many interesting albeit controversial items of original Grail research, including an alternative version to the mistaken theory that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdelene had children, and also an exact dating of the nativities of two so-called Jesus children, who are mentioned in Lucas and Matthew with different geneaologies (the Lucas child stemming from God, Adam and then later Nathan - the priestly line from David, and on the other hand the Matthew child stemming from Abraham and from Salomon - the royal or kingly line from David). The writers mentioned who identify Kyot as Guillot de Provins are not from a theosophic, but an anthroposophic group around Rudolf Steiner. One of these writers is not Von Stein, but Walter Johannes Stein, writer of the book “The Ninth Century – History in the Light of the Holy Grail”. None of them have done any orginal research into this specific Kyot question, in contrast to the anthroposophist Werner Greub, whose book on Wolfram von Eschenbach I have translated into English (”How The Grail Sites Were Found”, new book version is in preparation) and also into Dutch (”Willem van Oranje, Parzival and the Grail”). None of them can bank (directly) on Rudolf Steiner’s work in this case, because he only affirmed that this Kyot was a historical personnage and not a figment of Wolfram’s teeming imagination as most scholars still tend to believe. But because Rudolf Steiner also stated that the Parzival story took place, not in the 12th but in the 9th century, Wolfram’s source Master Kyot could not, in his eyes, haven been this Guillot, as he is a figure from the 12th century.
The “notorious” book mentioned by Ravenscroft is not all a pack of lies, as some e.g. Christoph Lindenberg have maintained. Problem was that Ravenscroft originally wanted his book to be published as a dramatized version of the events described in it and not as a genuine historical work. The publishers however promoted it as such out of commercial grounds, which was apparently never the intention of the author. So e.g. Ravenscroft’s claim that Rudolf Steiner acted as a medium between the deceased General von Moltke and his wife on earth, is vehemently denied by Lindenberg, actually a true statement in the ligh of documents that later appeared. In the appendix to my English translation of Greub’s book on Wolfram, available on my webiste under Grail Sites, I have rebutted point for point the scathing critism that this Lindenberg in the same review leveled against Greub.
Greub’s book was actually meant as the first volume of a Grail trilogy from the age of Zarathustra to Rudolf Steiner, but the 2nd and 3rd volumes were never published by the Goetheanum in Dornach, the Free School for Spiritual Science, but many years later by Greub’s son Dr. Marcus Greub. (Why this is, or may be, I have related in my introductions to the various editions to the Grail Sites book as can also be read on my website.) These two volumes contain many interesting albeit controversial items of original Grail research, including an alternative version to the mistaken theory that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdelene had children, and also an exact dating of the nativities of two so-called Jesus children, who are mentioned in Lucas and Matthew with different geneaologies (the Lucas child stemming from God, Adam and then later Nathan – the priestly line from David, and on the other hand the Matthew child stemming from Abraham and from Salomon – the royal or kingly line from David).

]]>