Tracy R. Twyman's interview with Prince Michael
Dagobert's Revenge Magazine, 21 May 1999
"Born in exile" in Belgium, 1958, Prince Michael Stewart inherited numerous
titles, among them, 7th Count of Albany, Titular Prince of France and Poland, and Scots
King de jure. Although his family had lived in Belgium for three generations, Prince
Michael had long held a heartfelt desire to return to Scotland and become their king
instead. So, at the age of 18, with the disapproval of his immediate family, Prince
Michael flew to Scotland, with money he'd saved from working in an insurance firm, to
pursue his dream. After a bit of a struggle, he achieved official recognition from the
Westminster government as the Head of the Royal House of Stewart. Now he is the elected
President of the European Council of Princes, a constitutional advisory body within the
European Union. In addition, he is the Knight Grand Commander of the Chivalric Military
Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, the Grand Master of the Noble Order of the Guard of St.
Germain, and the Sovereign Head of Scotland's Sacred Kindred of Saint Columba. He is also
the author of the best-selling book, The
Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland.
Tracy: You've been called Prince Michael since birth, right?
Prince Michael: Yes, I have.
Tracy: So have you always known that you were the rightful King of Scots? Did your parents
tell you that?
Prince Michael: Well, yes, I mean it's been in the family for centuries, you know, it's
from generation to generation. However, when you live in Europe and you've been in exile
for just below 300 years it's not something that you tend to be obsessive about. You know,
there is the concept that you have to survive in 20th century history, and we've had, you
know, two world wars and so forth, so family fortunes have had ups and downs, and
basically it's a case of survival more than anything else.
Tracy: OK, but there has been a plan ever since Bonnie Prince Charlie...
Prince Michael: Oh, there's been a plan even before Bonnie Prince Charlie, there's been a
plan since James VII, you know, who lost the three crowns due to the betrayal of the
Church of England. Yes, I mean, we have always wanted to come back to this country.
Tracy: OK, so then I don't understand why you had to fight with your parents about it.
Prince Michael: No, it's a question basically of, you know, my mother had other priorities
for me, like a 9-5 job kind of thing behind a desk. Mum's a strong socialist, as was my
Tracy: Oh, so they don't even like the idea of monarchy.
Prince Michael: Well, they think that it's a bit of an anachronism this century. However
I'm of a different kettle of fish, you know. I just don't think that particular way -
notwithstanding the fact that I was born the King of Belgians, which has had a monarchy
since 1831. I believe in the concept of monarchism. What my mother does not believe in is
the kind of monarchism as we have in Britain. She's quite happy with the kind of monarchy
you have in Europe. But bear in mind that to be a King or Queen means to lose a tremendous
amount of privacy. My mother and my grandfather being extremely private people, you know,
the idea of acceding to that particular status in life did not interest them.
Tracy: I see. But you had support from other members of the family?
Prince Michael: Yes, yes, but I must admit that, you know, we have been Belgians since
1892, so I must admit I'm the only throwback within the family thinking of himself as a
purely Scottish Stewart. My mother, my father, my grandparents were born in Belgium. They
are Belgians. I have never considered or termed myself to be a Belgian citizen. I
personally was born in exile, which I hated, and I came back to Scotland when I became of
age, and that was that, you know. I'd rather die a citizen of Scotland not on the throne
than a Prince of Scotland in exile in Belgium.
Tracy: When did you get this idea in your head that you would go back to Scotland and try
to reclaim the throne?
Prince Michael: I was five years of age at the time.
Tracy: Yeah, I remember reading that story. I kind of questioned it. It seemed like a
strange thing to come out of the mouth of a five-year-old.
Prince Michael: Not really. (Laughs.) Not if you know anything about my family! We can be
strange people occasionally. But I did make that - I tend to call it an
"utteration." And basically yes, I was five when I became Head of my house,
because my great uncle died in 1963, so in 1963 I then succeeded as Head of my house. And
the question was being asked on my 5th birthday, and out of the blue I just answered, you
know: "When I am 18 I shall leave you all to go to Scotland to live and die
there", quote. Take into account that my parents had just separated. This, you know,
being told by your only child that he was going to leave you when he's 18 years of age was
not particularly welcome by my mother. But yes, I did make that particular comment, and
when I was 18 I came to Scotland and, you know, that's it.
Tracy: I see. Well, when it was explained to you as a child, you know, who you were and
what your birthright was and stuff, did they mention the connection with Jesus and the
House of David?
Prince Michael: No, not really. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's something that many
families in Europe are aware of about themselves. However, bear in mind that Europe is
extremely Catholicized in any case. Even from a Protestant point of view this would still
be termed heretical. It's not something that we mention to anyone. You know, it's 2000
years old, so it's pretty much in the past. We have a concept of Christianity that is very
much different from the norm, that's true. None of us have ever considered the virgin
birth as explained by the Roman Catholic Church to be correct. These kinds of things, yes.
But then of course we do live within a Christian world, either according to the RC - Roman
Church, or C of S, Church of Scotland, or whatever, you know, it's either orthodox Greek
or Russian, or
then it's Roman Catholic or Presbyterian or Protestant. All of them still declare Jesus to
have been born of a virgin who was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Make what you wish out
of that, but frankly - (laughs riotously) - we have definite and very different views on
that matter, simply because, yes, we are of that bloodline. If I had to describe Jesus to
any one I would say, "Well, imagine Bonnie Prince Charlie 2000 years ago making a bid
for a new kingship, and unfortunately it went astray and it didn't work." And whoever
actually survived after he died - and we're not talking A.D. 33 or A.D. 37, you know, it's
much later than that. Christianity was not created during the lifetime of Jesus Christ,
it's after his death in A.D. 64. Actually I always say there is no such thing as
Christianity. What we have is "Churchianity."
Tracy: Right. Well the Ambassador told me that this was very significant to you guys, your
descent from David, because, well, he said that you considered that to be the basis of
your legitimacy, kind of a Divine Right.
Prince Michael: Well, yes and no. I mean, I think people have to make a definite
difference between, say, English Divine Right, which is totally different from the
Scottish point of view. Prior to Christianity being imposed in Britain, do bear in mind
that any king would have been termed a reincarnation of, you know, one of the gods that
prevailed in Britain. So even before Christianity, the fact is that a king was considered
to be a living god, an incarnation of a particular god, and his wife would be an
incarnation of a particular goddess. The concept of Divine Right is extremely old. The
Egyptians had it, the Sumerians had it, the Jews had it. Whether Jews today would admit to
that I don't know, but certainly during the days of Solomon and David, all actually came
upon the throne as an incarnation of something. So I wouldn't call it "Divine
Right". I would simply explain it as a continuation of a concept that is older than
Christianity, basically. I mean, I don't consider myself to be divine in any sense.
Tracy: All right. Well, I've read things put out, what seems like propaganda for the Grail
families, where they intimate that the Grail families are special and significant because
they're descendant from some intermarriage between Iraelites and extraterrestrials.
Prince Michael: No.
PM. (Laughs.) No. Whoever wrote that, take it with a pinch of salt. There is nothing
extraterrestrial about us. However, we could get into the concept of the fact that all of
us are made of extraterrestrial, um, how can I put it? If you think of what hits the Earth
every day for the past millions of years, there are items which actually enter our
atmosphere and become part of the living planet, which we eat, which we drink, whatever,
you know. It becomes part of our everyday intake. Considering that this has been going on
for millions of years, you can see that particular concept being understandable. But the
idea of actual extraterrestrials coming down, you know, beaming down from Planet Mars and
actually intermingling with earthlings, I'm afraid no.
Tracy: OK. Well I got kind of a different answer from the Ambassador. He said that
"We (and I assume he's speaking for the Grail families at large) consider God to be
an extraterrestrial." But again, he -
Michael: (Shocked.) Scott said that?
Tracy: He said that, but then he kind of qualified it by saying that "we" don't
imagine Him to be coming down in a flying saucer, or anything. He said that "we
believe that God has both physical and spiritual form", and that he is an
extraterrestrial. I really pressed this issue, so maybe I kind of forced him into saying
Prince Michael: Right. No, I would actually think that particular way. I mean, I consider
God to be a universal concept, you know, it spans the universe. It is the universe, and
it's not just planet Earth, it is every one of them. It is living within things, be it
rocks, flowers, people, animals. It transcends everything, really. I mean, we're all part
of this universal understanding which expands as the years go by. But I don't think of God
as being anything more than that. I mean that is my own. I think if you were to ask 11
people in a room to actually define their understanding of God you'd probably get twelve
answers. So my own is, call it the Great Architect, like the Masons do, or God, as the
Church does, or whatever, however you understand God to be, that will be your God. Mine is
something which actually transcends the entire universe.
Tracy: OK, yeah. I was just wondering if there was, like, a concept of God that gets
taught to you when you're a member of these families, or perhaps when you join the
Prince Michael: Not particularly, because at the end of the day, I mean, we're all
individuals, so our understanding and definition of the word God will be distinctly
different from one to another. What some families have in common is a particular pedigree,
which takes you to a particular man which has been defined by Church fathers as the living
incarnation of God, Jehovah or Yahweh upon earth. Now neither of us see it like that.
That's the way the Church perceives it, that what Paul imposed with his dogma upon the
people he preached to. Bear in mind that in those days in order to become a god you had to
be born of a virgin. Look at Greece, look at Rome, Babylonians, Sumerians, all of these
people, the ones that became extremely popular and became heroes in their own right, you
know, what historians would call mythical heroes today were all born of a god and a
virgin. So that seems to have been the prerequisite thing, was to have been born of a
virgin and a god. But you and I know perfectly well that all these people were born from
proper human beings.
Tracy: At what age did you join the Templars?
Prince Michael: Well, I was born into it. There are three families in Scotland where the
heads of those families are born into the Order of Knights Templar, which are the Setons,
the Sinclairs and the Stewarts. We're known as "The Three Ss".
Tracy: So when you were a kid you always knew -
Prince Michael: Well, how can I put it? The concept of something that you inherit, you
know, through the principle of heredity - it's not something you're told as a child. My
grandfather, for example was a Knight Templar. It's not something that I was told:
"Oh, by the way, you were born a Knight Templar." Because it never occurs to any
of us to tell the successive generation. Well, some of them do. But as a rule it's
something that you're born with. You know, if you have one title, you usually have about
three or four titles attached to it, minor ones, that you're not aware of. That is why
some people, some families, for example, get into hard times, and then they ask:
"What minor titles do I have which I could sell?" And it's only in this
particular fashion that they find out what belongs to them by the principle of hereditary.
The concept of the Knights Templars, from generation to generation it was dictated after
1314 was that the successive head of the House of Stewart, Seton and Sinclair would be
Knights Templars from birth. I'm also the 54th - 54th or 57th? I'm actually the 57th
Archpriest of the Kindred of St. Columba in Scotland. It's something you're born with. You
carry it from the time you're born until the time you die. It's difficult to explain if
you're not part of that particular concept, which is a historical one.
Tracy: Well, how about other members of the Templars? I mean, how do you even become a
Templar if you're not born into it?
Prince Michael: Well, basically, you're supposed to be invited to join the Order. You do
have three kinds of Templars which are proper orders, which is the Order of Christ in
Portugal, The Order of Our Lady of Montèzar in Spain, and then you have the Order of
Knights Templar of St. Anthony in Scotland.
Tracy: And do you have to be Scottish to join?
Prince Michael: Not particularly.
Tracy: Of Scottish descent?
Prince Michael: Well, of Scottish origin, yes. And then you have pseudo-orders, which date
back from, say, the 19th century, and you have thousands of those, unfortunately. And this
is where the problem arises, you know, which are the true ones and which are not the true
ones? The pseudo-orders are so numerous that it becomes practically impossible to
extricate the right ones from the wrong ones. But certainly the Order of Knights Templar
of St. Anthony in Scotland, the Order of Christ in Portugal, and the Order of Our Lady of
Montèzar in Spain are the only three recognized Templar orders which have a succession
going back to 1317.
Tracy: I see. Do have to be male to join?
Prince Michael: Not particularly. No no no no no. As a matter of fact, I'm writing my
second book on the matter, it's actually on Scotland, Templars and Freemasons. And
basically most people are not aware of this, and again it's the dogmatic history which has
been presented by some historians to the people stating that Templars certainly had to be
celibate, or at least unmarried, which is a load of rubbish, because they had lots of
married Templars in the Order. The only difference was that they actually wore a black
mantle with a red cross instead of a white one. That was to differentiate between the
married ones and the unmarried ones. You also had women Templars who were called
"Cisterciennes." And they survived well into the 14th century, so when people
say to you it was a male order only, it's a load of rubbish. As a matter of fact, what the
female Templars did was to take care of the education of children born to Templars, who
would become Templars themselves. So there is within the Order, even in medieval days,
already a kind of hereditary concept attached to it.
Tracy: Were the women initiated into the same secrets?
Prince Michael: I still have to find that one out. I reckon not. I reckon there was - how
can I put it to you? To each organization in the world, you know, whether you are a
business or political organization, you will have those who belong to the inner board and
those who belong to the periphery of the inner board. And your inner board is the one that
actually decides on the agenda. But you are never going to present that agenda as you
people of the inner board have it in your mind. You're going to present it in some way
that will be more acceptable to the rest in the group. And that's basically what happened
with the Templars as well. In fact, in order to choose a Grand Master - and again, history
tends to present the idea that all the knights had a say in who gets to be Grand Master,
and that is quite wrong. Only 12 people had the right to choose a Grand Master, and on top
of them, part of the twelve were the Grand Commanders of the Order. Now that was male
Tracy: If you were a member of the of the outer order, could you move up? Are there
Prince Michael: I suppose there were, because you keep that particular post for your
lifetime. Then when you die you have to get replaced, because there can never be less than
twelve people. So yes, I suppose that people could actually go up the ladder.
Tracy: And then they learn the real agenda?
Prince Michael: Possibly. Probably.
Tracy: And what exactly is that agenda? What can you tell me, at least?
Prince Michael: Well remember, you know, this is not the agenda now, because the Order as
it was no longer exists. The agenda was merely to, um - OK, historically speaking, the
Order of the Knights Templars existed since 1094, although you will be told 1118. So they
existed before they arrived in Jerusalem. So they arrive in Jerusalem in 1099, together
with Godfroi de Bouillion, and they are settled in the royal palace together with the
royal family of Jerusalem, i.e. Godfroi de Bouillion and his brother, Baldwin. Now it is
interesting to note that although these two gentlemen are Christian, as soon as Bouillion
was declared "Advocatus", which means Guardian of the Holy Sepulchre of
Jerusalem - and it's his brother, Baldwin I who is the first King of the Crusader Kingdom
of Jerusalem - both of them actually became Jews. They converted to Judaism.
Prince Michael: Yeah. Precisely. So they actually acceded to the rulership of Jerusalem
not as Christian aristocrats but as Davidic Judaic kings.
Tracy: So do you think they did that just strategically or because they had learned
something that made them change?
Prince Michael: No, they knew who they were and at the end of the day they went back home
where they belonged. And as such they decided, you know, "We're going to rule
Outremer as our ancestors did", and so they became Judaic. They converted. And they
became more Eastern than they were Westerners. And at the end of it the order was created
as a bodyguard, both a spiritual one, i.e. Temple guard, as well as a royal one, you know,
a royal bodyguard.
Prince Michael: For the Latin Kings of Jerusalem. So when you look at the descendants, for
example, of Hughes de Payen, who was the first Grand Master of the Order, you'll soon find
out that his lineage is to the House of Brittany, which of course takes him back to the
Merovingians, and hence, you know, further on down the line. And then you realize that
basically what they have done is: there is a spiritual Messiah, which is the Grand master
of the Order of Knights Templar, and then there is a temporal one, which is of course the
Latin King of the Crusader Kingdom. So basically you're going back to the roots, where you
had a High Priest, and then you had your King.
Tracy: OK, well how about the agenda of the Templars now, then?
Prince Michael: Well, to tell you the truth, I don't think personally that these
pseudo-orders have an agenda, for the good and simple reason that very few of them
understand what the history of the real Order, you know, the old, ancient order, is all
Tracy: But what about the ones that you consider to be legitimate?
Prince Michael: Well, the Order of Knights Templar in Portugal is now under the headship
of the royal house of Portugal, the House of Breganza. So again it's support to the
restoration of the Royal House of Breganza. The Order in Spain is under the headship of
the Royal House of Bourbon in Spain, and the Knights of the Order of Templars of St.
Anthony is favoring the restoration of the Royal House of Stewart in Scotland.
Tracy: OK, well, that's what I thought.
Prince Michael: (Laughs) You have to support your own royal families, and in Scotland, the
Order of the Knights Templar was known as, um, um, hold on a minute... "The bodyguard
of the Kings of Scots by day and by night."
Tracy: In Scotland, how many Scots at large do you think are aware of your claim and
Prince Michael: Well, the book is now #2 as a Scottish bestseller, so I'd reckon quite a
few, actually. And the problem that we have in Scotland, politically, is that, at present,
neither the SNP or Labour Party or the non-existing Conservative Party in Scotland wish to
debate the role of the monarchy in a free independent Scotland. I did a tour, a rather
extensive tour of Scotland for promoting the book, and during my talk I would ask people a
question, which is: "Now if we had to vote for total Scottish independence separate
from England, and it's a two question bill, i.e., Republic or Windsors, what do you vote
for?" And most of them said: "Oh, we'll definitely vote for a Republic."
Then my question was: "Well, is that because you are Republicans?" And most of
them said: "No, it's because we don't like the Windsors. They don't really belong to
Scotland as such." And so I said, "OK, it's a three question bill: Republic,
Windsors, or your own Scottish constitutional monarchy!?" And in all cases, or most
cases, the answer that I got back was: "Well, the third option is much more
interesting." Because Scotland has a monarchical history, which is much older than
England in any case, we have a crown, of which people are extremely proud, and it's the
oldest crown in Europe, it's older than the crown of England. And the idea of being
properly, constitutionally represented, at home and abroad was much more interesting than,
you know, a President. Notwithstanding the fact that, you know, I'm not saying that kings
are angels. They're not. Everybody's human. But I think that with a presidency corruption
at the top is much more obvious and certain than if you have proper constitutional
monarchy set up in a country. I mean, at least a king, when properly drilled on
constitutional matter - and this is it, you see. In Britain, when the Queen opens
Parliament every year, she will read the Queen's speech. It is not the
Queen's speech. It's a speech she has been given by a secretary of the Prime Minister. So
it's the Prime Minister's speech read by the Queen. It's his speech. But it is not what
the Queen expects from her government. It's very much what people can expect from a
government which most people haven't voted for in the first place. You see? So from a
constitutional point of view you also have to remember that Scotland is the oldest
constitutionally-formed country in Europe. In 1320 we had the Declaration of Arbroath,
which actually explains the fundamentals of civil rights and liberties of the entire
Community of the Realm of Scotland. Nobody else in Europe had this, least of all England.
So you have to bear in mind that from a Scottish point of view, civil rights and liberties
are much older in Scotland than say, America. In fact the American Constitution is based
on the Declaration of Arbroath. As a matter of fact your Constitution was actually written
Tracy: Uh, what do you mean?
Prince Michael: Well, what I mean is that if you look at the history of the Constitution
of the United States of America, as well as the Declaration of Independence of 1776, you
will soon find out that actually the people involved in the writing of both documents were
Scottish. They were not what you would call "American Americans." They were
Scots. And basically what they did was to update a medieval constitution, the Scottish
one, to an 18th century understanding of democracy, which had been taken away in Scotland
in 1707. And remember in America alone you have 23,000,000 people with Scottish names
today. And when you look at those people who actually fought for American independence,
you will find a tremendous amount of Scots in there as well.
Tracy: So you're talking, like, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton...
Prince Michael: Yep, all those. Paul Jones.
Tracy: I did not know that.
Prince Michael: Ah, there you have it. Very few Americans are aware of their history,
which is a great pity, because they will then find out very, very soon that the
Declaration of Independence and the tenets of their Constitution were given to them thanks
to people from Scotland who actually decided to leave. In fact, they were kicked out of
Scotland after the "45." They went to America. They settled there, and then they
realized: "Well, if we couldn't actually make it at home, let's make it here."
You know, Washington was a direct descendant of the Royal House of Scotland.
Tracy: Huh. I didn't know that. I remember he was offered kingship and he declined it.
Prince Michael: That's right, and he sent a delegation to Florence, where Bonnie Prince
Charlie was residing at the time and offered the crown to him.
Tracy: Yeah, I remember reading that. I just didn't know that Washington had any -
Prince Michael: Oh yes, he had royal blood. I mean, you know, it's far away in history,
but it's there. He would have been aware of his family tree. He was extremely
Tracy: All right. Let's go to the proposed constitution that you put in the appendix to
your book. Did you come up with that all on your own?
Prince Michael: More or less, yes. It's an updated version of the Declaration of Arbroath.
It's possibly more European than anything else as well. You know, Britain is the only
country not to have a written constitution in the world. I don't think people are aware of
this, but in Britain there is no such thing as a written constitution.
Tracy: Yeah. I noticed that in it you guarantee your citizens health care, and a job, and
Prince Michael: Well it's not a question of guaranteeing a job. It actually a question of
saying to the government that "Your role is to make sure that people can have a job,
certainly can have a roof over their heads, and certainly can have free health care and a
free education." It's a constitution about rights. It's not a constitution about
Tracy: But if you're homeless in Scotland, does that mean that once this constitution
comes into being that you now have a right to a house, whereas before you didn't?
Prince Michael: Well, if my constitution comes into being than yes. Presently, if you're
homeless, you haven't got the right to work, you haven't got the right to draw benefits,
you haven't got the right to vote. In other words, you have no rights whatsoever. Now, I
don't know how you feel about this, but I find it appalling that in the latter part of the
20th century - you know, we're two years away from the year 2000 - we still have people
facing that situation. Notwithstanding the fact that, if you look around - and I don't
know what it's like on your side of the ocean, but on our side of the ocean there are
empty houses, there are empty flats boarded up that could actually be a home to a homeless
person. And to my mind there is no need for people to be homeless regardless of the
situation they got themselves into.
Tracy: Well, that's nice.
Prince Michael: Yeah, well surely that stands to reason. I mean if one believes in the
tenets of Christianity in the first place, and let's face it: everyone, or at least most
people in Europe will call themselves Christian. But I find a tremendous amount of
un-Christian attitude, most of all from politicians. For example, in 1979 - I don't know
how many people today are homeless in London - but in 1979 there were 50,000 between the
age of 18-25 homeless in London, you know, below the windows of Her Majesty the Queen, and
very little was done about these people. Very little is done about these people. So it's
about time we get into the concept of helping, and forget about the view that if they
can't provide for themselves than they are no good to anybody else. I find that quite
Tracy: On the Council of Princes, I assume there are other
members of the Grail families, right?
Prince Michael: Well, there's 33 of us, you know, 33 royal houses represented on the
Council. Most of us are connected to one another at one point or another. So yes, most of
us are of Grail families.
Tracy: Do all the Grail families kind of have a common goal? I mean, do they network and
collaborate together for a specific cause?
Prince Michael: No, not particularly. At the end of the day, the idea is that, you know,
all of us should be restored to where we belong. On an individual basis it's bad enough
working for yourself, never mind having to help and try to work on behalf of somebody else
as well. Europe is quite a big continent, you know. So no, it's more on an individualistic
basis. But at present how the Council works is as a constitutional advisory body. So think
in terms of Straussburg and Brussels legislating new laws. Every country in Europe has a
written constitution. Some of that legislation will impinge upon on or two or three or
more constitutions, so that's what we're dealing with. We're pointing out that this
particular legislation, say, would not or could not apply to either Spain or Holland or
whatever because of a particular point of their constitution. Either they amend that
legislation or it's the constitution of that country that has to be amended, which of
course becomes a bit frightening because you can make so many amendments that at the end
of the day you produce a constitution which has nothing in common with the original one.
So we'd rather change the legislation in Brussels of Strausburg against changing or
amending a constitution in Europe.
Tracy: On your website you have a picture of the Honors of Scotland, and the "Stone
of Destiny" is there. Is that the real one?
Prince Michael: No. (Laughs.) No, basically what Edward I was given in 1296 was a masonry
stone, i.e. it's a stepping stone. And funnily enough, we had this symposium few months
ago in Edinburgh, and, you know, you had several historians talking about the Stone, and
this and that, whatever. And then we had a stone mason talking about the Stone and
describing the Stone, and it was extremely boring and most of us were falling asleep until
the chap said (and I quote): "...but the most interesting feature about the Stone is
that it's a stepping stone and you step on it with your left foot." Well, I'm not
joking; all the heads - and you have about 500 people in there - all the heads, it was
like an American wave literally happening there. All the heads went up. And most of us
actually said or thought: "Well, if that's the case then it's not the real
thing." Because it's not for stepping, it's for sitting, and you would only sit on it
once in your life, at your coronation. You would never step on it. And the fact is there
is an indentation showing a step, a left foot step as the chap was explaining to us. So I
know for a fact that what Edward I was given was not the Stone. And let's face it: it was
not used as a coronation stone with the kings of England until Henry IV acceded to the
throne of England. Not before then. And it was known as the Victory Stone, not the Stone
of Destiny. It was merely known in England as the Victory Stone, and it was then entrusted
to the monks of Westminster to commemorate St. Edward. But not before the accession of
Henry IV was the Victory Stone brought from Scotland to London used as a coronation item
as we're thinking of in England.
Tracy: Well, in the book, you say that you know where the Stone is, the real Stone.
Prince Michael: No, what I say is that the Stone is in Scotland, and it's probably in the
trust of a family or families. Again it's that hereditary thing, you know, from father to
son, or whatever, from father to daughter if you have no son. But Pat Gerber, who actually
wrote a book on the Stone of Destiny, tends to believe that particular concept as well.
Tracy: What's his name?
Prince Michael: Pat Gerber. It's a she. She actually lectures at the University of
Tracy: So you don't know where it is specifically?
Prince Michael: I think it will be produced at the right time, basically Whenever Scotland
becomes independent, and whosoever will then succeed us as King of Scots, I think that the
Stone will then be brought forward. The real thing.
Tracy: Do you know about any Merovingian descendants who are trying to reclaim the throne,
the French throne?
Prince Michael: Oh, there is Ludwig of Anjou, who lives in Spain. He actually is the
rightful heir to the throne of France. You can forget about, um, what's that chap's name
Tracy: Pierre Plantard?
Prince Michael: Pierre Plantard de Saint-Claire. No no. Forget about that.
Tracy: So what, he was lying?
Prince Michael: Yeah, I think it was more wishful thinking than anything else, personally.
Tracy: So you dismiss all that.
Prince Michael: I dismiss the Plantard claim, yes.
Tracy: And the Prieuré de Sion? You dismiss them?
Prince Michael: Well, there certainly was once upon a time the Order of Sion, yes. Again,
that became defunct in medieval days. I'm not saying that it didn't survive in some other
means. It probably did. But again, you'll find that historically speaking the Holy Blood,
Holy Grail book, for example, by Michael Baigent and so forth, what they forgot to say was
that it wasn't until post-WWII that all organizations had to register, whether you were
spiritual organization, temple or whatever. If you were an association of any kind, after
WWII you had to register. Now WWII finished in 1945 and the Order of Sion as mentioned in
Holy Blood, Holy Grail did not register before the late 1950s. So you have to ask
yourself, you know, considering they had to register after 1946, why did they do it in
1958? And the answer to that is that they only became an association in 1958. It was only
created in 1958.
Tracy: So what we know as the Prieuré de Sion today is probably not the real Order of
Prince Michael: It's not really the real Order, no. I'm quite sure that within some
families the concept of the Order still applies. But it will be individuals that are
descended from an organization which was prevalent in medieval days. It's like the
Templars. You still have many families with Templar names today in France and Scotland and
Portugal and such. And their ancestors were once upon a time Knights Templar. It can be
said they are Templar families. But whether that makes, in effect, a live order or not,
this where I have my doubts, because most of these, if you ask them: "Do you believe
yourselves to be a member of the Order of Knights Templars?", the answer to that
probably would be: "No, I don't." They would say: "My ancestor was a Knight
Templar, but I am not."
Tracy: Well, that's kind of disappointing. I kind of liked the idea that was put forth in
Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It was neat.
Prince Michael: Yeah, but it was too many ifs and whats, you see. That's the problem I had
with that particular book. In Bloodline of the Holy Grail, we're concerned with, you know,
a family tree. That's it. And of course it's a book about the history of the Church vs.
the family. It's no longer ifs and whats. You've got dates, you've got names, you know,
it's all there. The problem I have with claims of certain historians or researchers is
what they are given, they are given this by some very weird individuals, and they tend to
actually believe what they're told. I think it's very naive, personally. If Michael
Baigent and Co. had actually checked the data they were given, I'm quite sure they would
have thought twice before writing the book, or they would have written something in a
different vein, still about this particular concept, but written differently. When the
book came out, I was quite taken aback, because I thought to myself: Well, they haven't
really done any research, because, they haven't really scratched the surface. In fact,
they haven't really scratched at all. You've been given this data by one individual,
claiming to be the head of one particular order. And they swallowed it, you know, like
champagne. And it was an interesting book, but - which is why Bloodline of the Holy Grail
was written, really, to put the whole thing back in perspective.
Tracy: So you would say that Pierre Plantard and friends are charlatans?
Prince Michael: I don't like the word "charlatans". I think, basically, like
many people, he just jumped on the bandwagon. One thing you could say in your article is
that Mary, Queen of Scots, for example, was very aware of her Merovingian and Davidic
descent, because she actually had a book that had her family tree back to King David via
Jesus and so forth. And that came from the Lorraine family, de Guise-Lorraine. And again,
if you go back to The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland then you see the descent of Marie de
Guise-Lorraine from the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, i.e. Baldwin II.
Note: We provide this information for the benefit of our visitors but
we are not in a position to verify the facts as they are presented.
This comment system requires
you to be logged in through either a Disqus account or an
account you already have with Google, Twitter, Facebook or
Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account with any of these
companies then you can create an account with Disqus. All
comments are moderated so they won't display until the moderator
has approved your comment.