Ever since reading "The Holy Blood, Holy Grail" in 2002, I have been fascinated by "alternative" history and the myths and legends of the Holy Grail and the Merovingians.
I found this book interesting, but I found some of the author's hypotheses extremely tenuous at best. "A" plus "B" doesn't always mean "C", and from my perspective she made a lot of claims without sufficient facts to back her up. She was standing on the shoulders of the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and others, but very soon her leaps of logic left me shaking my head at the conclusions she had drawn.
In his book "Underworld", Graham Hancock, who is dealing with similar subject matter (origins of civilization and global flood myths) puts forward far better scientific fact-based research into the origins of civilization. While incorporating myths and legends regarding Atlantis and the great floods, Hancock doesn't make the fantastic leaps to judgment this woman does.
Though this book was published in 2004 after Dan Brown's "The DaVinci Code," which was published in 2003, this book makes NO reference to it, or its claims. I would not have an issue with this except the fact that she claims that if there were some truth that Jesus fathered a royal bloodline that "no one today would have an issue with this". How can she claim such a thing after the controversy that "The DaVinci Code" stirred up and how the Vatican condemned it? How could that be ignored? One gets the impression that the book's manuscript had lain around the publisher's office gathering dust and they decided to cash in on the controvery, yet didn't make the necessary additions to the text to take in the latest developments.
Another criticism I have: this book needs a better editor. There were several embarrassing typos that should have been caught. These errors makes the book look "bush league" and unprofessional, thereby contributing to the belief that one can't take much in this book too seriously.