In this explosive book, the authors show that after the Roman conquest, Britain retained its culture; its royal families intermarrying with the Caesars. There were two kings named Arthur -- one, the son of the emperor Magnus Maximum, the other his sixth-century descendant. Their lives rolled into one and elaborated upon by medieval poets, they became the single King Arthur of myth and legend. The authors reveal the burial grounds of both Arthurs as well as a secret historical current linking our times with the mysteries of Arthur and the Grail.
From the Paperback edition.
Response to attempted assassination of book, by G MuirdenAs authors we do not as a practice respond to Book Reviews published in the Press. The article by Geoff Muirden is however so replete with misrepresentation and distortion as to require some attempt at refutation.
Mr Muirden states, "The Welsh nationalism of the writers can not be doubted, nor their dedication to the cause..." etc. Ridiculous nonsense, Mr Muirden, and you know it. Baram Blackett is from Newcastle in the North East of England, he is a "Geordie" and an 100% Englishman. Adrian Gilbert is a Kent man born and bred from the extreme South East of England, educated in London. Alan Wilson has one English grandparent, one Irish grandparent, and two Welsh grandparents.
Mr Muirden cites an alleged inscribed slate found in late 1998 at Tintagel. This was widely publicised in Britain and it emphatically does not name any "Arthur". In fact three days after publicity a man came forward and admitted having himself scratched the markings on the slate. Fact. Another fact, is that some eight years ago a major Oil Company named their new North Sea Oil Field as "Camelot Field", and then donated £800,000 or $1,600,000 Australian to a group of archaeologists at Tintagel. They found nothing of Arthur or Camelot there, nor will they, but the cash ran out and they appear to have had to come up with something to get further funding. Read the prestigious "History Today" published in London, on this fiasco. Geoffrey Wainwright makes his living out of Tintagel. There is nothing fragmentary about the massive array of British provable evidence in the British-Welsh Manuscript sources as Muirden alleges. Even Sir Winston Churchill identified Arthur II as ruling South East Wales.
Mr Muirden should know that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles proclaim the founding of Glastonbury in Somerset in AD 942, and Dunstans appointment as first Abbot, four centuries after Arthur II. We are astonished that Mr Muirden states that Lichfield which is firmly in the English Midlands, is "in Wales". Gross misrepresentation. If he takes the trouble to actually read the ancient text of the illustrious Harleian MSS 3859 - from where every other Arthurian author quotes, apparently again without reading - he will see exactly where "Glastennen" is clearly named as at Loyt-coit. It is in the text Mr Muirden.There is a massive ancient burial ground at Atherston with large mounds for the illustrious dead, just as the records state. There is no massive ancient graveyard at Glastonbury in Somerset.
If Mr Muirden wakes up he will also see that Leslie Alcock - who excavated South Cadbury in Somerset - actually admits on page 163 of "Arthur's Britain" that all the names surrounding this hill were forged by John Leland of Somerset who was the King's Antiquary, in AD 1534. Alcock on the same page admits that Camelot is recorded as being in South East Wales.Yet for seven years Alcock, who had no qualification in history or archaeology, excavated at Cadbury Hill whilst knowing full well it was part of a network of forged names. This was to create an illusion of the Arthurian presence and is a well known series of "politically correct" forgeries.
The fact is that we do something very unusual in Arthurian Research,- we actually read ALL the ancient evidence, and not as is customary some 5% of it. The ancient very reliable Welsh Manuscripts identify Dindryfan (Dunraven) as "the castle of the birth" and no one disputes that it was a major residence of the Welsh Kings up to AD 1091. We would consider it normal that a Welsh royal heir, son of King Meurig ap Tewdrig descended from Kings of 1000 years would be born in the residence of these Welsh Kings. And Dindryfan is a Tin-Tagel or Din Dagol = a large"double banked" hill fort. That is what the name means. e.g. Lincoln in English records is Nicole in Welsh.
Now for the Comet. It seems to have by-passed Mr Muirden that Dr Victor Clube of Oxford University Asrophysics Department also identified the cometary debris impact in Britain around AD 562. in his publication of 1986. In 1998 Professor Michael Baillie an expert in Dendro-chronology, of Belfast University also published his book with detailed findings on sixth century British & Irish Fauna and identified a cometary strike in the mid Sixth Century AD. The numerous Welsh records are peppered with details of this huge cometary disaster, and so are ancient records from other countries.
Gruffydd ap Arthur - Geoffrey of Monmouth is only one of a host of more ancient sources. We are not impressed with quotes from D. ustin Schove & Alan Fletcher. If cometary debris strikes Earth at speeds above 36,000 miles an hour you won't see it coming Mr Muiden, nor will Schove & Fletcher.
Mr Muirden states that Geoffrey of Monmouth is generally regarded as unreliable as a source. You bet he is in England, where History has been twisted, bent, fabricated, and falsified for centuries to achieve "political correctness" and desirability. It is rather like saying that the Nazis did not like Jewish records. This book is only a partial summary of under 300 pages; we could publish 5000 pages, but that is not feasible. In Chinese Histories you get Chinese names, and the same applies to the Aztecs, the Incas, the Japanese, Assyrians, Egyptians - you name them - everyone. So it is extraordinary for Mr Muirden to complain that ancient British History contains correct ancient British names. Use the Latin or rarer English versions and you get total disaster. Take the much quoted "King Beli Mawr"; it is not a name, it is a title meaning Great Tumults. He was King when Caesar invaded in 55-54 BC and was Annyn = Aeneas the Rugged. His son Caswallon whacked Julius Caesar and sent him packing in humiliation matching the American flight from Saigon. Every intelligent person knows Caswallon is not a name it means "the Viceroy", almost certainly Dingad son of Aeneas, and to use the ridiculous Latin version of Cassivellaunius creates a meaningless void. Only an idiot would do that. Why would a British person prefer a foreign alien Latin version?
It is ludicrous that Muirden selects Geoffrey of Monmouth out of hundreds of sources used and alleges that Geoffrey is unreliable, as if all the other older records we use are therefore redundant. Even more ludicrous to the point of idiocy, Muirden fails to inform readers that the sole - the one and only - the single source upon which any Tintagel in Cornwall claim on Arthur rests is the same Geoffrey of Monmouth (South East Wales), who he and the English claim is totally unreliable. Get rid of Gruffydd ap Arthur alias Geoffrey of Monmouth, and there is NO record of any connection with Cornwall. So the English can have the cake and eat it, and keep the penny they bought it with.
You cannot deal with British History using foreign alien Latin or Roman muddles. The original titles must be adhered to to. Cadwallader - again not a name - it means "Battle Sovereign"; Cadfan again simply means "prominent in battle" or "many battles"; and Cuneda Wledig is Cun = Lord and Edau = of Restoration, with Wledig being Legate. Cynfelyn means Yellow Hair, and to call him Cunobelinus is nonsense. Arthmael means the "Iron Bear", and so on. This is not English in the sense of Anglo-Saxon History, it is British History. Vortigern in English-Latin Records is Gwrtheyrn in Welsh Texts - simply Monarch of Men, and you have to seek out the man behind the title.
As for Glastonbury in Somerset being associated with St Ilid = Joseph of Arimathea, well Mr Muirden is the first person we have heard of in many years who might believe that. We have yet to publish the bulk of the Christian records which EXIST in ancient British-Welsh Manuscripts of impeccable authenticity. Mr Muiden actually thinks that it is perfectly alright for a large nation to attack, destroy, ridicule, and obliterate,the entire ancient history, heritage, and culture, of a small nation in a deliberate campaign of cultural genocide. He thinks that to tell the truth will upset misguided Christians who like the idea of a fake Joseph of Arimathea at fake Glastonbury in Somerset. What about the upset and damage done to the Welsh nation in this horrendous farce Mr Muirden? Don't they count, don't they have rights to their own precious heritage?
We know why the English Parliament prohibited Publishing in Wales from 1474 until 1694. And we do find it puzzling that two ancient figures located in the same area - Warwickshire - and at the same time were noted as having identical careers and nothing done. Arthur I the Black and Guy of Warwick (in British-Welsh which Mr Muirden dislikes, Gwyr o Caerwythelin = Man of the Castle of the Military Retinue) had identical careers. The man who in AD 1700 made the link was regarded as the foremost scholar of the day, "the learned Edward Llwyd", the Keeper of Oxford's Ashmolean Library and Museum. The London regime has been forging and fabricating the Histories as if they were plasticene for centuries, and i
