Rhedae Was Not Rennes-le-Château – a misconception that was first popularised by Louis Fédié and later embraced by Abbé Bérenger Saunière! Bill Putnam and John Edwin Wood in their book The Treasure of Rennes-le-Château: A Mystery Solved (Putnam & Wood, page 88, Sutton Publishing, 2005), noted the difficulty in understanding how the name Rhedae could have been changed to Rennes-le-Château. They noted that Rhedae was cited as being “located at the crossing point of four major roads: how could this possibly be the case at Rennes-le-Château on its isolated hilltop?”

According to Google Search Engine of 25 June 2025: “No, modern French historians generally do not link the ancient Visigothic city of Rhedae with Rennes-le-Château. While some popular theories and fictional works have made this connection, particularly those related to the 19th-century priest Bérenger Saunière and later popularized by authors like Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, professional historians and archaeologists largely dispute this claim.”

Also, the “Visigothic Pillar” only dates from the period of Abbé Saunière – it was depicted as being upside-down because it marked the conquest of the Visigoths by the Gauls – really a double-take on the struggle between Church and the Republic by Abbé Saunière; hence the reason for the upside-down pillar surmounted by the Virgin Mary of Lourdes.

As for René Descadeillas, he had reservations about the so-called “Visigothic Pillar” because it was not mentioned in any of the Reports of the church of St Mary Magdalene in Rennes-le-Château. Descadeillas provided a transcript of Guiraud Cals’ Report in his book, Mythologie du Trésor de Rennes, pages 14-15 (Editions Collot, 1991).

Much of what is contained in Descadeillas’ Appendix on the Visigothic Pillar is missing from the Report by Guiraud Cals, so either the Cals quote on Pages 14-15 is either only partial, or perhaps Descadeillas was mixing what was written by others in his Appendix (Descadeillas, Mythologie du Trésor, pages 131-132).

In any case, the “Visigothic Pillar” that has been observed since 1891 is not considered to be ancient by some authors (eg, Christopher Scargill, who described it as being of recent origin (The Abbé Saunière’s Treasure, Popular Archaeology, Volume 6, Number 6, April 1985; writing on page 11: “Unfortunately the pillar is a fake, a poor copy of a Visigothic pillar, of the sort which became quite common in the second half of the 19th century”).

Also, the so-called “Visigothic Pillar” was only used by Noël Corbu to fabricate the story of the so-called “parchments” – the real Church Altar was really donated by a wealthy widow on 27 July 1887 and so Corbu’s story – and all other subsequent stories – all fall apart.

If there really originally was a “ Visigothic Pillar” in the church at Rennes-le-Château it may not have been the same as the one put up by Abbé Saunière in 1891.

I, Guiraud Cals, Diocesan Inspector of Buildings at Carcassonne, hereby declare that I made a site-visit to Rennes to examine and check the aforementioned building in response to the invitation issued to me on 21 October last by the Prefet of the Department of the Aude.

The church in Rennes is nowhere in the sort of state of dilapidation that I was told that it was in. This building does, it is true, have a dangerous structure, but the danger is only superficial: it is therefore no cause for alarm.

The vaulting is irregular in all directions, i.e. it displays major subsidences in both the longitudinal and transversal cross-sections. I have scrupulously examined this aspect and have discovered that these sinuosities are the result of a 'trial and error approach' stemming from the profound ignorance of building procedures prevailing at the time the church was built. This is a very old building: I think that it dates back as far as the 8th or 9th century. The workmen of this period lacked experience and intelligence, especially in remote villages like Rennes. I am also led to believe that all these irregularities are due to the fact that the individual curved sections of the vaulting have been badly put together. This is obvious from the fact that the North wall has retained its original perpendicularity and that no cracks are to be found anywhere on its surface.

The central wall has an overhang of eight centimetres and - although I note the presence there of two enormous buttresses that are later in date than the church itself – I think that this wall was constructed in the form which it is in today, as one cannot see any dislodgements of stones either in the vaulting or in the wall. I therefore think that this building does not pose serious dangers to public safety.

I acknowledge that the church is too small for a population of 500 souls such as the commune of Rennes currently contains. As for enlarging it, the layout of the church would not allow us to open up bays for either aisles or side-aisles; the only way to enlarge the church would be to build the tribunal (gallery) as a projecting structure, but I do not recommend this. The church in Rennes not only displays subsidences in the vaulting, but also a completely irregular and bizarre layout. The tribunal, the plasterings and the renderings that I suggest would never succeed in altering the irregular shape of the interior. In the light of this fact alone I would recommend cancelling any kind of project of enlargement or embellishment, and instead to wait until the commune has sufficient funds available to be able to provide for the construction of a new church, the cost of which could amount to approximately 4500 francs.

Drawn up by the undersigned Diocesan Inspector in Carcassonne on 9 November 1853.