Arthurian researchers will be interested to hear that Alan Wilson and Baram
Blackett have a new website. This is at www.kingarthur.fsnet.co.uk . Here
you will find details of the genealogies of the 2 King Arthurs described in
our book "The Holy Kingdom" as well as much other material based on their
researches. At their website you will find pictures of the REX ARTORIUS FILI
MAURICIUS stone and of the Electrum Cross.
You don't have to agree with their conclusions (I don't agree with
everything) to see that their researches are original and far-reaching in
many fields. This is a website worthy of close scrutiny and will explain why
there has been such a block on true Arthurian research in Wales.
Adrian Gilbert.
Adrian, I've read several of your books with M. Bauval, and
found them quite interesting. However, I cannot _believe_
you have actually _SEEN_ the site you're touting here, if
the person who posted this "recommendation" is the same
Adrian Gilbert.
The _Cymry_ are descendants of the ancient Brythons, who
derive from the continent of Europe, and arrived somewhere
between the 9th century BCE and the 4th. They have no
relation to the lost tribes of Israel (nor to the
Cimmerians), and there is no
evidence that they were ever Semitic, or spoke a Semitic
language. By the time the Brythons arrived in Britain, the
Israelites were developing their own script. They certainly
did not speak any Celtic language, nor could they have
acquired one -- they were removed from Palestine in 722 BCE,
just a little too late for Wilson/Blackett's purposes. This
is the same type of whacked pseudohistory that made the
Nazis infamous, and "scholars" like Waddell (who thought
that the British were descendants of the Phoenicians)
ridiculous.
Their "Basic Historical Facts" are hysterical. Their
etymologies are a farce, and don't even take into
consideration that derivations and related words are _known_
for many of the names they mangle. Their interpretation of
"Beli Mawr" is particularly entertaining, since "mawr" is a
basic Welsh term whose meaning is well-known and is still
current in modern Welsh.
That there were multiple Brychans is only reasonable, as
well as multiple Constantines... lots of Peters, Pauls,
Patricks, etc...
Early Christians would naturally name their sons after the
great,
supposedly Christian emperor, in later years. So what? Yes,
confusion is possible, but is nowhere near so likely as with
place names, like Cornwall, of which there are six areas
with names that could be any of the "Cornwall" sites in
Geoffrey of Monmouth. (I'd personally like to know why there
are so many children of Llywarch Hen in thegenealogies. e
couldn't possibly have ...hmmm... _mated with_ so many
women... he wouldn't have any time to write poetry. And
believe me, no _one_ woman gave birth to that many kids.
Furthermore, he supposedly _lost_ his patrimony, so how
exactly did he manage to feed all those women and brats?
When it comes down to it, he either did _not_ in fact have
so many offspring or died young from being castrated by a
pissed-off father or brother.)
Where did they get the "cometary impact" on Britain? The
rest of Europe, in the cities and towns, was fairly
literate, and trade was continuing... why are there no
records, such as in Geoffrey of Tours, or even in the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, that this happened? (I've read
Geoffrey of Tours and the ASC, if this had been mentioned,
believe me, I'd have noticed it! The only other _comet_
that struck this planet that is known of was the one that
killed off the dinosaurs, last I heard.)
First off, it doesn't appear to be a kinglist at all, just a
list of names and their supposed etymologies/derivations,
which in a number of cases are patently ridiculous
(Avallach). Kinglists generally indicate some length for
each reign and make some attempt at indicating
relationships, if there are any, between
predecessors/successors. Some kinglists also contain
extracts from associated royal annals, as does the one I
analyse in an article on my own website, and which I
announced in this newsgroup earlier this week.
Let's see, Edward Williams was also known as Iolo Morgannwg,
was he not? I believe that character was known for his
"improving" of
texts. I wouldn't call this a credible text, particularly
when one has a Welsh dictionary to hand.
There is no reference which supports their assertion that
the ancient name of Tyre was "Sarras". There is, however,
an area associated with a very similar name in Barcelona,
Calabria, a very ancient city which was, at various times,
Iberian, Celtic, Roman, and Visigothic. The particular area
of the city
I refer to was anciently a Jewish settlement, and may have
been one possible place of exile for the man known as Yeshua
ben Yusuf, if he did in fact survive his execution by Romans
in Judaea. Grail freaks can make of this what they will.
(There is also a site with a similar name in Egypt... and
both names are historically documented, unlike the supposed
connection to Tyre).
The (to put it mildly) far-fetched association they conjure
up between Britain, Ptolemy, and a Roman officer in
Palestine called Albinus is hysterically idiotic.
The idea that Maximus was the father of an "Arthur" is not
supported by the Welsh genealogies. The person they refer
to was, in Latin: Antonius Donatus, and in Welsh: A_n_hun,
not
A_r_hun (and who was evidently old enough at the time his
father left Britain as Emperor-elect to accompany him, which
suggests that his age was such that his mother could not
possibly have been British, MM having evidently accompanied
Theodosius the Elder in his reconstruction assignment to
northern Britain after the Great Raid of 376). They cite no
references for this putative lineage, which tends to make me
very
suspicious that it originates only in their imagination and
wishful thinking. While a manuscript _r_ and _n_ may appear
quite similar, and may be miscopied easily by a tired
copyist, they also identify _Anhun_/"Arhun" with a third
person, one "Andragathius", without giving any
evidence for this corrolation, and there is no linguistic
connection between the Celtic Andragathius and the
Romano-British Antonius/Anhun. There are, in fact, no
"details" cited in this page, simply _assertions_without any
real supporting evidence.
As to their second Arthur, others have already suggested
him... Chris Barber & David Pykitt, in JOURNEY TO AVALON.
And while I agree with them (to a certain extent), that
Athruis ap Meurip was _one_ of the historical persons who
went into the development of the composite character known
as "King Arthur", I think they're seriously off on the first
one, since it seems to be based on a one-letter arbitrary
mispelling and an identification with someone with a very
different name (Andragathius). So far, they're just tagging
after Barber & Pykitt, and attempting to add their own
little spin, evidently to get attention for their hopeful
tourist site
in Wales.
Their genealogical material is incoherent and badly
written. It doesn't track well at well, can't make sense of
most of it. They really should try reading some actual
genealogical texts and use them as models for their own
pages. David Ford has some extremely good genealogical
pages on the ancient British lineages on his website, which
is quite well done (ignoring the somewhat garish
http://freespace.virgin.net/david.ford2/Early%20British%20Kingdoms.html
They repeatedly mention some organization called CADW,
without clarifying what this group is. Is that a Welsh
word/proper name used as a group name, or is it an acronym?
If it is an acronym, what does it stand for, and who are
they? Are they a private group, or a government
organization? How did they get involved in this affair?
They really should define what a "quango" is for the rest of
the planet who don't know British political slang. Who sets
up one, who runs it, where their money comes from, who has
oversight, if any, etc.
They have 2 links regarding "court cases". I see, on trying
to read the material on the page named "Court Case 1",
nothing but semi-hysterical allegations with distinct
indications of incipient paranoia, with no indication that
there is an _actual_ court case involved. The account of
the search warrant is incoherent. What did the warrant state
the authorities were looking for? Who brought the charges
or gave evidence supporting whatever allegation(s) that
resulted in the search warrant? -- What were those
charges/allegations? First they say the church was damaged,
then they insist it was not. -- They refer to some raid on
an office and missing artifacts, which they also imply were
buried in a casket on their church property by a third
party, which seems, from what I read on the site, to be
related to the casket/chest the police were looking for
during the
execution of the search warrant. They do not state the
date/time of the office raid/theft, nor do they include any
supporting documents, such as police reports, that such a
theft ever occurred. There are no photographs of the raided
offices. There are no photographs of the artifacts that
have gone missing.
That they _own_ the property where they so conveniently
found "artifacts" is only another source of reasonable
doubt.
Of course, the tourist fees to the site would keep two aging
men quite nicely if they could get this theory
well-entrenched in the popular mind. That the artifacts
were "stolen" from an office is oddly convenient, too...
no-one can test what isn't available. Their credibility is
seriously in doubt here.
The second "court case" has, evidently, not a damn thing to
do with anything Arthurian -- why this is part of
"ArthurGate"
is not apparent. It is simply a sordid account
of an aging man who has various tawdry relationships with
various odd lodgers, one of whom happens to be his colleague
in the two "research foundation".
This second "case" was obviously included on the site
solely to counter the bad press received during the affair,
which was seen as reflecting on the credibility of Mr.
Wilson, not surprisingly. The account of the affair as given
simply casts _more_ doubt on the credibility of those
involved.
Normally, such research foundations as "The Arthurian
Research Foundation of Britain" and "The International
Arthurian Research Foundation" have innumerable links to
other organizations having to do with their pet subject.
Neither of these link to any other Arthurian organization or
historical research organizations, which suggests that it is
an impromptu, one-or-two man group with little actual
structure or organization (such as a board of directors,
funding committee or trustees, research associates, etc),
and completely
lacks any professional prestige or credibility. They appear
to be window dressing, in other words.
All in all, the account of whatever is going on is extremely
incoherent, and has very little evidence to back it up or
give me any reason to fork over any money for ONE book, much
less all those they mention as being available or soon to be
available. I'd suggest they hire someone who actually knows
how to organize evidentiary material(in regards to "case
#1),
not to mention someone who actually knows how to write.
Furthermore, one of the pair of gentlemen is not old enough
to have been investigating _anything_ for 40 years. He is
considerably younger than Mr. Wilson, judging from the
rather odd photo of the pair.I seriously doubt they've been
acquainted for even half that long.
Please assure Mr. Wilson that I am not anti-Welsh, I'm
simply anti-crackpot. I am, in fact, descended from several
Welsh lines, including Jones, Morgan, Lewis, and Leonard, as
well as a variety of other lineages originating in the
British Isles. If you run a search in Deja News on my
posting address, I'm sure you'll find several posts
regarding Arthurian studies which will show that I am far
from buying into the "canonical" AS-dominant version of
history, as Mr. Wilson would have it. I have an alternative
interpretation of Arthurian matters, which I will not
discuss in detail now.
I hope Mr. Wilson's cataract surgery went well. Both my
parents had the same surgery -- my dad also had a detaching
retina that was re-attached using laser surgery, and could
still read quite well at 82; my mother reads quite alot
still, and has had no other problems with her vision since
the surgery (she does tend to lose her glasses quite often,
though!).
Regards,
Sarah
-- "Just to add a little information: in the Declaration of Arbroath (1320), it is written of Scotland's Scythian ancestors. Part of Scythia was Assyria (Syria, Hebrew Tribe of Simeon). It was accepted knowledge, but is little known today."
-- "My results (DNA test) support the assertions made by the authors of this book (The King Arthur Conspiracy by Grant Berkley, ISBN 978-1-4120-2642-0). This will be the undoing of the liars. DNA is science and it has not the capability of lying. It does however, expose the liars for what they are."
-- "This situation (the absurdity of the lies and deception) was bizarre as Austin Layard had discovered the great archives of the Assyrian Emperors at the ruins of Nineveh in 1846 .... These stones named the Ten Tribes deported from Israel as the 'Khumry' and this is still the name of the British Khumry who are misnamed as 'Welsh' by the English (who are NOT the original 'Brit-ish' of 'Ish-ra-el')."
-- "Let me, as a Sephardic (Spanish) Jew, give you a clue about life .... The Ashkenazi (Bolsheviks) are not real Jews, which might explain why they are Talmudic Zionists and we are not." -- Real Torah Jews (Hebrew mtDNA):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YBa2yp1ls3QnLPABB21kGynKQGYAA1J3/view?usp=sharing