Holy grail, holy bollocks

I love my new jumper. It's very woolly and very warm. Definetely fit for cold winter days.
Enjoying my newly found warmth I was positioned in front of the telly, snuggled onto the couch, when the first pangs of annoyance started to creep through my veins. Reason: a documentary about The Da Vinci Code.
It's been on a couple of times already, but cos I think the da Vinci Code sucks I never took the effort of watching it. (Prejudiced, I know. Sue me.)
However it managed to grab my attention when I was channelhopping. And now I feel like an incredible rant, not so much aimed at the documentary (not at all, really, because I had the same opinion) but rather at the book itself.

Let me first explain. The theory in the da vinci code - about Jesus and Mary Magdalene having a child which was brought to France and whose bloodline contained the first founders and kings of France - is based upon another book which was published in 1988, called Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
In this book it is explained that a. Jesus and Mary had a child and b. that this child should be seen as "the holy grail". They have reached these conclusions cos of the fact that "holy grail" in French is written as "saint graal", and in earlier times as "san greal". If you put the g in another place, it actually says "sang real" or "royal blood" - or so the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail state.
Thus the theory about the holy grail. But as everyone knows (sadly, Dan Browns book turned out to be a bestseller) this is just the beginning. This theory is the actual truth, so it says in both The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and is protected by a secret society called the Priory of Sion. In Renaissance paintings and church buildings you can actually find proof for this and the whole sang real theory.

So far about the theory itself. Now my rant: I think - hence title - it's absolute bollocks. Both the authors of Holy Blood and Dan Brown haven't properly done any research whatsoever; if they had, they'd found out the Priory of Sion is a mere fairytale, made up by three bored Frenchmen who thought it'd be funny if they claimed themselves to be the actual decendants of the first French kings. However, they never were really serious about the whole thing, until the people of Holy Blood started to "investigate" and write their book - things got out of hand, and the man who had thought up the Priory-story stated hastily it was all nonsense.
By that time, however, there were already a lot of people who believed the whole thing and believed in a "priory of sion". Funny enough a lot of these people were Americans.
I can't help it, but Americans shouldn't meddle with European legends and myths. Especially not Dan Brown - a lot of people were positively mad about his book and the theory, but every sane person who thinks about it for five minutes will reach the conclusion the book is very shallow and the theory is absolute nonsense (for there's no proof whatsoever). The only thing Brown does is throw in a lot of myths and ideas, without obviously having a single clue what he's talking about. The theories described may seem impressive, but are in fact empty boxes. He has clearly no IDEA of European legends and how they came into existence. My word of advice to him: Please, Dan, focus on American tales. There should be some, although they might not be as interesting as the European ones - but hey, it's not my fault you were born in a young and naive country. But stop raping and twisting our legends - they do not need to be made into something fake and american.