Talk:Priory of Sion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon conspiracy.svg

This Conspiracy theories related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Jellybrain.png
This article requires attention for the following reason(s):
  • Desperately needs some citations. Tagged since June 2021


Any better suggestions[edit]

Any better suggestions for the article title welcome.

There are enough 'fragments of history crocheted together into the theory', articles on several wikis, books, TV and cinema films etc to justify an overview article such as this.

This article probably requires collaboration on the various potential segments of the story arc: potential arguments for and against each component would be required.

There is nothing in the records as to whether Jesus married and had children or did not (and, with most modern political and other leaders, spouses/partners, and children are only intermittently mentioned and lines of leadership succession outside royalty only occasionally go to the next of kin). It is up to the reader to decide whether it is more plausible that the family disappeared into the general population of the area or went elsewhere and get noticed as 'them from wherever.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What we need[edit]

Is a prory of Sion article (the organisation that's supposed to be running the conspiracy), and have a category about all this stuff. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Gawd, not another one... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Could we perhaps pull ALL of these bits of stuff into a single, coherent page that could then be linked to from the pseudohistory page? Wouldn't that work better than little lonely stubs strewn across our own little mini-wikiverse? Researcher (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Or just delete them? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There's just enough of a connection that these could be brought together into something on mission and such. However, no one has yet done so, so I'm ok with deletion. Researcher (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There should be something on RW on the topic - given the various angles that can be pursued: and there are probably more 'arguments against' than I have given. What the article should be called and how its RW 'spider' should be developed requires more thought. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps there should be. But starting out a poor stub with a dubious title seems like a bad idea. Anyway, I moved this to a new, broader title. Can you add any P of S tidbits to this rather than making lots of stubby bits all over the place now? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said - working title and stub to get the discussion going (spider - in the sense of links on Rational Wiki).

Can someone with more knowledge of the subject put in an overview comment - the case for Jesus having a family is Scottish 'Not Proven'; whether there were any claims to the family of Christ before the 20th century etc. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Glastonbury Link[edit]

There is a better case for Jesus' family being in England: the legendary visit of Joseph of Arimethea and Jesus to Glastonbury (possibly to start off the festival), King Arthur and the Grail Story, the Round Table construct at Winchester, and the monarchs of England claiming to be Kings of France... Jackiespeel (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep this up and I'm gonna start an article about you ;) And wait, weren't there many times when British monarchs were also the kings of France? Or at least, chunks of it? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Trying creative linkmaking -and I am 'mostly harmless' (Do not annoy the historians - as they are likely to be after you). The English/British monarchs' claims were purely theoretical for centuries (apart from the Channel Islands).

Wikipedia has a Jesus Bloodline article. Jackiespeel (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

'After' in the creative sense of course. (There is a 'Do not annoy the dragons' version as well) Jackiespeel (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)