Is There Any Truth In The Controversial Claims About The Main Plot Made By Dan Brown In His Book, The Da Vinci Code?

In his best selling novel, The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown's plot claims that an organisation called the Priory of Sion is responsible for covering up the Catholic Church's secret that Jesus' married Mary Magalene and had children, the decendants of which are still alive today. A poll in Spring 2006 found that two-thirds of people who have read his book believe this main plotline.

At the beginning of the book, Brown clearly states as "fact" that the Priory organisation, discovered in 1975, when Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the organisation. This is not "fact" at all. Four Frenchmen founded the Priory of Sion in 1956, one of which admitted in a 1996 TV interview that the parchments were invented by the group for fun. Another founder said in court in 1993 that the documents were fabrications. However, Brown tells readers that the Diossiers Secrets have been authenticated by many specialists. The author confuses the reader between fact and fiction.

NO, there is no truth in it at all.I have read all of the Gospels from beginning to end, and it never once implies that Jesus was married.In fact, it only mentions Mary Magdelen a few times.The main things, it says about her are that she was present at the Lords Crucifiction and that he has seven demons cast out of her. The Da Vinci code is a load of nonsense,  none of the four Gospels say anything at all that could possibly mean that Jesus was married.

I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION BUT the Bible will not reveal it either as the contents of this book were decided by church officials and they did not include anything that did not follow what was the basis of their belief. That is why some bits are repeated some contradicted and some just omitted. Incidentally despite being a best seller and well written (Dan Brown's book not the Bible that easily outsold it), the plot was a bit obvious - I mean we are talking invisible ink... Didn't Enid Blyton cover that.