British history in the records

!NEW!..........PDF E-Books available - Click here..........!NEW!

The History of the British extends from around 1500 BC to the present day. There is no history of any nation on Planet Earth that has been so disgracefully abused and so completely distorted and mangled as that of the British Nation. The appalling mess that the 3500 years of British national record is now in is a National disgrace.

A major Kingdom of Britain was based in Khumric Wales that was much larger than it is today and the Kings resided in South East Wales and in the Midlands of what is now England. There were at least seventy-eight successive Kings ruling from this area from the arrival of Brutus in 500 BC to AD 1300. The collapse began when Iestyn ap Gwrgan was deposed in AD 1091 and King Morgan was murdered by Edward I of England in AD 1300.

Here we have another problem as the megalomaniac Edward I of England finally succeeded in having Llewellyn Olaf (the last) a Prince of tiny North West Wales assassinated in AD 1282, and in AD 1300 he declared his second son Edward II to be "prince" of Wales. Strange as Wales was always a Kingdom. This was to lead to further gigantic historical distortions.

1600 BC & 500 BC - First of the British arrivals

[ Top ]

A major fleet invasion and subsequent further arrivals came into Britain under the leadership of Albyne, sailing from ancient Chaldean Syria around 1500 BC. (The date may be as late as 1350 BC and research to establish this is underway.). These Ealde Cyrcenas - Old Syrians are well attested in Mediaeval English Manuscripts. These were highly civilized literate, and advanced metal working people.

Ancient Brutus coin

In ancient Assyria between 720-687 BC, a certain people called the Ten Tribes of Israel - known to the Assyrians as the "Khumry" were deported to Armenia. Following this in 687-650 BC, they then left Armenia and marched through Asia Minor to the Dardanelles. The Khumry at this time were called the Kimmeroi by the Greeks. Half the Nation went to found Etruria around 650 BC, and the remainder sailed for Britain.

This leads us to the second major invasion of Britain around 504 BC from Western Asia Minor and this appears to have been a combined Trojan, Khumric, and Cornish immigration. The Khumric element were the same Khumry that the Assyrians called the Ten Tribes of Israel, and actually they appear to have been accompanied by members of the two tribes of Judea. Again these were highly civilized culturally developed, literate, and advanced metal working peoples.

Brutus - also known as Britt, Brwth, and Prydain - was the founder of Britain.

55-54 BC - Julius Caesar's failed attempts to invade Britain

[ Top ]

Statue head of Julius Caesar

First failed attempt in 55 BC

In 55 BC Julius Caesar turned his attention to the reportedly prosperous island of Britain. He had previously conquered Gaul with his devastating campaign lasting a little over two years, but he had no idea of the humiliation which was coming his way.

He was keen to bring this prosperous island into the Roman Empire, and before he invaded - according to many welsh histories - there were several exchanges of letters between himself and a ruler (Caswallon) of south-east Briton, who is referred to by Caesar as Cassivellaunus.

This Caswallon did not like the aggressive way in which Caesar demanded a yearly tribute from Britain, and effectively told Caesar where to stick his rather large head.

Upon Caesar invading Britain he was exceeding the powers the Senate had invested in him, which were given to him for Gaul alone. They would applaud a victory, but failure was another matter, and he therefore needed to portray himself as the victor of these invasions, which was certainly not the case.

In his "De Bello Gallico" - obviously intended for a Roman audience so as to enhance his stature - he comments that the Britons knew nothing about "war or arms" and so would be easily subdued.

His thinking was that they knew nothing of advanced tactics of modern warfare that he himself employed, but it never seems to have occurred to him that they themselves would have their own tactics of warfare the like of which, he himself was ignorant.

Such was his thinking when he landed at the beaches of the Kent coast. He and his army of around 12,000 men were met with an opposing force containing hundreds of charioteers who were extremely skilled in chariot warfare, as Caesar himself remarks in his "The Conquest of Gaul".

It should be noted here that while Caesar knew of chariots in the context of racing, he had not expected them to be used for warfare, and certainly not with such devastating efficiency. Chariot warfare had all but ceased in Europe, but Britain being an island, and more importantly an island of warriors descended from Brutus, who himself was a great grandson of Aeneas of Troy - where chariot warfare was the norm - would have obviously been kept alive and vibrant, as a very effective form of warfare.

In a series of bloody hand-to-hand fighting, the invaders were forced to flee, and in this encounter Caesar actually lost his own sword while fighting against a brother of Caswallon called Nennius, who actually trapped Caesar's sword within his shield - and admittedly a little of his head too! Nennius unfortunately died a few days later with the terrible head wound, but the Caesar invasion was dead.

Caesar's disasterous second & final attempt in 54 BC

Caesar however, returned in the following year of 54 BC with a considerably larger army, around 40,000 men and a few thousand cavalry. Now the British under Caswallon - son of Beli Mawr - allowed Caesar to march his troops unopposed across the Thames and northward into the midlands. Caswallon had a trick up his sleeve, and employed a devious tactic of evacuating all their flocks and their people, well in advance of Caesar, leaving no food for his men to eat.

Caesar's army were reduced to foraging the land for anything they could find, and even this proved very difficult as Caswallon sent around 4,000 chariots to constantly harass the poor foraging parties of Caesar's army. Caswallon could have sent a far larger force if required, and as modern archaeology suggests, the population of Britons at the time could have numbered as many as ten million. Caesar himself remarks that the population of Britain was huge.

Anyhow, the effect of Caswallon's tactic left Julius Caesar and his army stranded, starving, and demoralized. Matter were about to worsen, as he received news his ships where he originally landed were being attacked by a British army, and to put the icing on the proverbial cake, another British army was moving in to intercept his retreat back across the Thames.

This brilliant strategy forced Caesar into a similar position to that of Napoleon, with his retreat from Moscow. A British army ended up "escorting" the rabble army of Julius Caesar back to his ships, and even Julius Caesar himself writes in his "De Bello Gallico" of the scramble to get aboard the ships - each one now carrying three times their usual numbers of soldiers, due to the devastation of their fleets by both the British army and the fierce sea storms.

Laughably but predictably, even this immense and humiliating defeat for Julius Caesar has been explained away by claiming that the surrounding British army - from whom Caesar and his men scrambled aboard their now heavily laden ships - were in fact performing a servile ceremonial escort duty.

Incidentally Beli Mawr - whose second son was Caswallon above - is titular and Caswallon means viceroy, and by the mangling of Caswallon into Latin "Cassivelaunius", the information he was a viceroy is completely lost. This academic use of the often useless and alien Latin corruptions of titles, only adds to the confusion of British history.

Caswallon took the throne after his elder brother - King Llud - had died. King Llud - founder of Lundein (London) - had two sons called Afarwy (Androgeus), and Teneufan (Tenuantius), but both were too inexperienced to rule the throne of Lloegres, but given the dukedoms of Kent and Cornwall instead.

Afarwy was the traitor whom Caesar used to justify his invasion of Britain, and probably explains why Caesar writes of Kent being "by far the most civilized inhabitants", while near enough calling the rest a bunch of uncouth savages. This is in stark contrast with the unbiased descriptions of the contemporary Greek geographer Strabo, who actually travelled to the places he wrote about, and described the Britons as literate and multi-lingual, whereas Caesar had barely penetrated the Midlands, and so most likely used these slanders as more justification to "civilize" the "barbarians".

When Caesar was forced to leave with his tail tucked between his legs, the Welsh Triads record that Caswallon ordered a great celebration feast where 120,000 animals were killed. Rome would not attempt another invasion for almost a hundred years.

AD 37 - A third much smaller migration of people arrive

[ Top ]

A third and much smaller group arrived in Khumric Western Britain in AD 37 when the Holy Family from Jerusalem arrived in Britain. This resulted in the setting up of and the beginning of the First Christian Church in Western Europe. The religion did not start off in Rome, and was taken from Britain to Rome in AD 51 by King Caradoc I, and his family, and the first Bishop of Rome was Linus a son of Caradoc I.

The leader and founder of this new faith arrived in Britain and when he died he was buried in Britain and his grave was faithfully recorded and still exists. Quite obviously this was and still is a problem for the Church of Rome that claims a pre-eminence in Western Europe from Peter and Paul who arrived separately in Rome many years after King Caradoc and his family and the first Bishop Linus.

This was and is a huge problem for the British people and a major cause of the corruption and abandonment of all British History. If British History is correct - and it is absolutely correct - then Rome is completely wrong.

It all stems from the arrival of a man from Jerusalem into Britain in AD 37, who did not stand on a street corner in Jerusalem and float up to heaven on a handkerchief in a strange ascension cloud. He lived on and died in Britain and was buried in Britain. He did not visit Britain as a twelve years old boy with his uncle.

In c 434 Patrick son of Mawon from Glamorgan went to Ireland to preach Christianity and even this offends the London and Rome juntas, as it again points to earlier British style Christianity. One English archaeologist-not a historian- even made a documentary film shown on television where he ludicrously claimed that St Patrick came from France, and this clown was filmed sailing in a fishing boat from France to Ireland.

These are a few very basic points about Ancient British History. For centuries Rome beavered away attempting to destroy these Histories. The crucified man who was taken down from a cross in Jerusalem, and who lived on and died in Britain was a huge problem for the Church of Rome. All the records had to be declared to be false, and Linus and Caradoc I and St Patrick, and both King Arthur's had to be obliterated as Khumric in origin. So the Church of Rome's problem was translated into Britain's problem.

AD 43 - Emperor Claudius's unsuccessful invasion of Caradoc's Britain

[ Top ]

The next Roman to invade Britain was not a fighter but a thinker. He was the Roman Emperor Claudius, who spent most of his life studying books rather than fighting in battles, due to having cerebral palsy.

His attack was better planned than his predecessors, and was aided by the initial reluctance of the Legions to board the ships in Gaul. The British eventually tired of waiting, and went back to their homes, thinking the Romans - like Caligula before - were not coming after all.

When the Romans finally set sail for Britain, they arrived virtually unopposed. They had also brought with them Elephants, which because of the noise and their unfamiliar smell, rendered useless the British cavalry pulling the chariots. Thus began the piecemeal occupation of Britain.

King Caradoc I son of Arch opposed the Roman invasion for nine years from AD 42-51. Tacitus records that of the eighty battles with Caradoc's Trojan Silures, the British won sixty of them, and two Legions were entirely obliterated.

Eventually the Romans met the British in their biggest battle, and here lies a problem because both sides claimed victory! All evidence points to a British victory or at the very least a stalemate, but the Romans having celebrated the previous triumphs of Britain with Claudius in AD 43 would never have admitted they were losing the war now in AD 51.

It seems few if anyone has ever questioned the Roman claims of victory.

The fact is that King Caradoc went north to Aregwedd Voedawg (Cartismandua), who was the Queen of the Brigantes, and tried to persuade her to join him against the Romans. Now he could hardly have done this if he lost the battle in AD 51. Cartismandua then earned herself the undying infamy in Britain by betraying Caradoc over to the Romans in chains.

Also fact is that the Romans were unable to penetrate the South Khumry lands after the AD 51 battle where they claimed "victory", and where King Ceri Longsword - nephew of Caradoc - ruled. Not until twenty-three years later in AD 74 were the Romans finally able to penetrate this supposedly "conquered" area.

The Boudicea uprising of AD 56 along with the slaughter of around 100,000 Romans caused the beginning of some different policies in parts of Britain under the Romans, as they finally realised how dangerous their position in Britain was.

AD 51 - Christianity arrives in Rome with Caradoc from Britain

[ Top ]

The Llywel stone from Breconshire, possibly showing Joseph of Arimathea travelling to Britain via Egypt. (Click to enlarge) Brecknock Museum copy

Christianity was brought into Britain and specifically into South East Wales in AD 37 "the last year of Tiberius". It was taken to Rome by King Caradoc I and his family in AD 51, in the time of the Emperor Claudius, and the first Bishop of Rome was Linus the son of Caradoc I.

Saul or Paul wrote how he intended to visit these Christians in Rome, and the idea of Christianity being brought into Rome by Paul and later by Peter is false. The great historians of the Church of Rome, Cardinals Baronius and Alford (Griffiths) researched and proved this. It is an undeniable fact.

It was not until the later reign of Nero that Peter - and later Paul - actually arrived in Rome. Western Apostolic Christianity began in Britain and spread out to Gaul and Rome from Britain. These facts are admitted by the quite different Church of Rome, but not too loudly and not too often.

Roman Catholicism arrived in coastal districts in Eastern Britain to the immigrant Saxons and Angles 560 years later when Austin-Augustine was sent to them. Soon after this, the centuries of religious wars began between the immigrant now Roman Catholic Angles and Saxons spurred on by Rome, and the Apostolic Christian British.

AD 80 - Bonassus - King Baram of Britain throws out the Romans

[ Top ]

Then in AD 80 the Romans record "Bonassus usurped the Empire in Britain", and this means he threw the Romans out of Britain! They remained outside of Britain for a further 34 years. You would think this fact would be a major piece of interest to historians. Not so.

Who was this Bonassus? Nobody seems to ask this simple question, because this would raise questions of the Kings of south east Wales. Well Bonassus was King Baram, son of Ceri Longsword. The last Roman governor of south east Britain was Sallustus, and after he was executed by Domitian in AD 80, there were no more Roman officials in Britain for over 40 years.

This proves once again that the British Kings ruled independently, and also matches British Histories recording independence in this period.

AD 123 - Emperor Hadrian's peace visit to Britain

[ Top ]

Statue head of Emperor Hadrian

It was not until the diplomatic visit of Emperor Hadrian in AD 123 that matters between Britain and Rome were to become more peaceable.

Hadrian had no children and he came to Britain to make an agreement to get Britain into the Empire, and the carrot was for him to adopt suitable related heirs. The British royalty had intermarried with the Roman aristocracy in the reign of Claudius, and so this deal was possible.

Cardiff Castle founded around AD 45 -50 is named Caer Dydd and that means 'Castle of the Agreement'. The idea of 400 years of Roman rule really is demolished.

Hadrian did not build "Hadrian's Wall". He built a series of forts connected by a road, which was for most of the way fronted by an earth bank and ditch. It was Septimus Severus who really built the wall in AD 210, and in much different circumstances.

AD 138 - Roman Emperors & British Kings

[ Top ]

It is a strange fact that all the Roman Emperors from Hadrian's death in AD 138, until AD 235 are close matches with leading British Princes, with same names and same characteristics:

The successions of father to son, or uncles to nephews are also matches.

Statue of Septimus Severus

What seems to have happened is The Romans persuaded the British state with its stable lines of rulers to join the Roman Empire, and a deal was struck. The Romans gave Britain part of its vast Imperial trading consortium, in return for much needed legitimate Emperors.

There is quite a remarkable fact that from AD 235 to AD 286 there were 19 short-lived usurping non-British Emperors. Chaos ruled the Roman Empire, and Britain for that period was a separate Western Empire of Britain, Gaul and Spain.

Tombstones of the more prominent of these western Emperors have been located near grave mounds in south Wales. Anywhere else this would be called evidence.

Not until the murder of the British Emperor Carausius (King Carawn) in AD 293 was there a short re-unification with Rome.

AD 296 - Constantius Chlorus the Western Emperor of Britain

[ Top ]

Constantius Chlorus was the new Western Emperor in Britain from AD 296-306, and he was husband to the British Queen Helen of the Cross. Their son was Constantine the Great, who re-established British rule over the entire Empire.

AD 306 - Constantine the Great

[ Top ]

Statue head of Constantine the Great

Constantine the Great was British and his mother the Empress Helen was British and both were devout British Apostolic Christians and not Roman Catholics. Constantine had little alternative other than to allow Jesus the Nazarene to be elected as God at Nicea in AD 334 because his father Constantius had been elevated to deity status by the Romans.

Constantine like all the British Christians thought that God needed a home in which to reside and so they placed the home and dwelling of God in the Sun. They did NOT think that the Sun was a god, but they thought that the Sun was the residence of god. That was why no one could look upon god.

The British Kings went right on through what is ridiculously termed the "Roman Period". In AD 325 the British Empress Helen brought what was believed to be the Holy Cross from Jerusalem into Western Britain. It is still there and no one in modern times has even thought to look for it before Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett. In fact no one dares to look for it as the anger of the London Government and the Church will fall upon them and seek to destroy them. The Cross is still in Wales, and it is very bad news for Rome and London.

AD 322 - King Euddaf of independent Britain

[ Top ]

When Constantine left Britain to conquer the rest of Rome, King Euddaf (Octavius) - grandson of the Western Emperor Victorinus - fought the lieutenants of Constantine the Great from in AD 310-322, finally defeating them. So from AD 322-367 Britain was once again independent under King Euddaf.

This was followed by the brief excursion into Britain by General Theodosius, until the next of the British Imperial line - Mascen Wledig or Magnus Maximus, son of Crispus Flavius Nobilis Caesar, eldest son of Constantine the Great.

AD 388 - Magnus Maximus & Arthur I of Britain

[ Top ]

Magnus Maximus was the only son of Flavius Nobilis Crispus Caesar, who was the eldest son of the Emperor Constantine the Great and his first wife the British Queen Minerva. His son was Arthur I, and known to the Romans in AD 383 as Andragathius - General of the armies of Maximus.

King Arthur I family tree.

King Arthur I - born circa AD 346 died c AD 400 - was eldest son of Magnus Maximus and Ceindrech daughter of Rheiden is very well recorded, and in fact he is harder to miss than to find.

In AD 383 King Arthur I the eldest son of the Emperor Magnus Maximus, the only son of Caesar Nobilis Flavius Crispus, the eldest son of Constantine the Great and the British Queen Minerva, led the British armies into Gaul and defeated the Roman Emperor Gratian at Soissons.

He went on to conquer all of Western Europe and his father Magnus Maximus was briefly Emperor until AD 388. Theodosius the Great of Constantinople was only able to prevent them in AD 388 by recruiting every barbarian horde that he could gather from outside his Empire, thus sowing the seeds of Rome's eventual fall, not unlike the later Vortigern with the Saxons in the time of King Arthur II.

The much maligned British Histories are in line with the Roman histories and they are perfectly correct in stating that Arthur I invaded and conquered Europe. Not bad for an alleged fairytale or Hollywood comic cartoon figure. This again is very bad news for Rome and London.

Bad news for Anglo-Saxon propaganda of falsely alleged British weakness and "barbarism".

AD 400 - The "Dark Age" of Britain

[ Top ]

The Ogmore stone which records land donations made by "Arthmael" ("Iron Bear") King Arthur II. (Click to enlarge)

The ancient Charters of Llandaff Cathedral and Llancarfan Abbey actually record the Kings and occasionally Princes who granted them lands at the time. These records start around AD 400 and continue on well after AD 1100.

These very important Charters contain historical data and reasons for the grants to the Church. When a King died his successor was served by the same Bishop, and when a Bishop died his successor served the same King, so you have an overlapping cascade of impeccable evidence detailing the succession of Kings and Princes of South East Wales, along with the Bishops and Abbots who served them from AD 400 onwards.

In the intervening years from AD 51 onwards until around AD 600 the History of the British is very well known and provable. There were no Dark Ages as is claimed by English (Anglo-Saxon) writers. The detail of what happened in those centuries is totally, completely, and utterly different, from the political and religious distortions that are paraded by the liars in London, Oxford, Cambridge, and elsewhere.

The English fiction of Wales being a Principality and not a Kingdom, evaporates like the morning mist nonsense that it is.

AD 411 - British King Constantine III & the famous letter of Honorius

[ Top ]

In AD 406 a vast confederation of the German Vandals, Sueves, and Alans, crossed the Rhine and devastated Gaul. The Roman armies were defeated and Gaul was in chaos. The word "vandalism" of today, originates from the destruction carried out by the Vandals 1,500 years ago.

Anyhow, to prevent these German tribes from reaching the Channel, the British King Constantine III, a cousin of Arthur I, took the British armies over into Gaul, where his general Geraint defeated the Vandal confederation and penned them up against the Pyrennes.

King Constantine sat in Treves whilst his general Geraint fumed and strove to get him to attack Honorius of Rome. So the British were definitely not weak and helpless, but Rome was.

While this was going on Alaric the Goth took his chance and invaded Italy and he proceeded to sack Rome. The helpless Roman Emperor Honorius wrote a letter to the Italian citizens in the southern city of Rhegium in the province on Brittium on the Toe of Italy informing them of Alaric's approach and stating that he could not help them and they had to try to defend themselves. They were on their own.

All this is very well recorded by Zosimus and Olympiodorus. The English academics took this very clear record and turned the helpless citizens of Rhegium in Brittium in Italy, into the powerful British whose armies and King had conquered Gaul and saved the Empire. For centuries they have lied their heads off alleging that this letter from Honorius was sent to the weak helpless British who were allegedly dependant upon Roman protection.

This letter is a virtual article of faith in academia, and generations of British people have been misinformed of this alleged fact. The truth is VERY different.

This at the same time that the British had transported their armies into Gaul and defeated the Vandal Confederation that had mauled the Romans. This has to be one of the monster lies of History and it is one of many similar all designed to distort and destroy British History.

The powerful British were very well able to take care of themselves and the Romans had been kicked out of Britain several decades long before 411.

AD 503-562 - King Arthur II & the Comet

[ Top ]

The Ancestry of King Arthur II is as follows:

King Arthur II family tree.

Stained-glass window portraying King Tewdrig who was Grandfather to Arthur II.

Arthur I had a son Tathall (Theodore) whose son was Teithrin the Subtle (Theodorus), and he had a son King Teithfallt (Theodosius), and his son was King Tewdrig (Theoderic), and his son was King Meurig (Maurice), and his eldest son was Arthur II – Arthmael meaning Iron Bear in Khumric "Welsh".

This Sixth century King Arthur II c AD 503-579 is hugely recorded and again unmissable. (More detailed info to be added ASAP)

In AD 562 Britain was struck by debris from a Comet and this great catastrophe that devastated and destroyed most of the great island. The majority of the large population of between 9 to 10 million were annihilated. The lands were contaminated and diseased and it was death to enter these great Wastelands for around seven to eleven years.

This gigantic disaster is one of the major events of British history. It is probably the cause of the Roman Church insisting that no stone could ever fall from heaven onto planet Earth, until even these bigots were compelled to admit the truth when a large shower of meteorites landed near a French village in AD 1803.

Two things then happened as Angle, Saxon, and Jute, people swarmed into the empty and largely depopulated lands, where the survivors were struggling to restore their devastated and destroyed country. This was to become ludicrously known as the Anglo-Saxon Conquest.

The second disaster was the arrival in coastal Eastern Britain of Austin in AD 597, sent from Rome to preach Catholicism to the immigrant pagan Angles and Saxons. Rome was seizing the opportunity to get into Apostolic Christian Britain. The religious wars that went on for centuries were about to commence.

In the confusions of destruction and widespread disease resulting from these comet impacts, the King Arthur II had evacuated the army to Brittany (both Brittany and Normandy were British territories until c AD 952). He returned to Britain as the diseases abated. His brother had sailed west in search of new lands.

In his History of the Franks, the then living Gregory of Tours, a contemporary writer, records that the two Islands in the sea - Britain and Ireland - were on fire from end to end at a date which is easily fixed at AD 562. This would be the disaster resulting from the Comet debris striking large areas of Britain and Ireland.

AD 562-579 - King Arthur II, his voyage to America & his burial

[ Top ]

Madoc Morfarn (the Cormorant), a brother of Arthur II, had sailed west in search of new lands, which might be a place where the people could live. In c AD 572 Madoc returned after ten years and detailed the discovery of America. In AD 573 Admiral Gwenon sailed to confirm Madoc's star reckonings, and in 575 Arthur II, Madoc, and Amwn Ddu sailed in a 700 ship fleet for America. All this is absolutely provable and again bad news for Rome.

The Gwarchan Maelderw and other records place the Prince Madoc being at sea for ten years, and so from 562 to 572. There is an array of physical evidence and inscriptions in the Coelbren Alphabet on the East Coast and Mid West of North America.

Bat Creek inscription shows a remarkable resemblance to the supposedly "forged" British Coelbren Alphabet.

In AD 574 Arthur is said by Taliesin to have been in Er-Yr ("towards that which is beyond" America) for four years. This brings us to 578, when he was assassinated. Then his body was kept under an overhang for the winter and brought back to Britain in the spring to summer of 579 for burial. This is clearly the best recorded funeral in British ancient history, which is why Arthur II is claimed to be "untraceable".

Maelgwn was then elected in AD 580. Everything fits into place from data in these records. So there were two powerful Kings named Arthur, and to avoid the enmity and wrath of London and Rome these were welded together into one great King.

Artist's representation of the first burial of King Arthur II in a cave. (Click to enlarge)

Ancient Coelbren-inscribed sword found in America. Quite probably the sword of Constantine the Great and a later possession of King Arthur II.

AD 1714 - Disaster for British History as English import German Hanoverian family

[ Top ]

The final disaster for British Ancient history came in AD 1714 when the English imported the German Hanoverian family of the elector of Hanover as their puppet kings and Queens. From this moment onwards everything historical had to be both politically and religiously redesigned into a suitably acceptable form to promote the new Germanism in England in particular and Britain as a whole. Few people read the publication of the 19th century deliberately designed to popularise the German ideals.

The one-quarter Welsh King Henry VII of England had a sister who married a Scots King, and later a descendant of this marriage married an Elector of Hanover. So when the throne of England passed from the Tudors to the Scots Stuarts, and there was a problem on there being no heirs to the throne from Queen Anne and from Queen Mary and William of Orange, the Parliament had a bright idea and invited the German George, the Elector of Hanover, to be King of England.

From this time onwards the centuries of assaults upon all Ancient British History, Heritage, and Culture, accelerated and increased. Everything British had to go. The numerous, strong, culturally advanced British Nation had to be transformed into primitive tribes of uneducated barely civilized peasant barbarians. The German origins of the Anglo-Saxons needed to be promoted and extolled. The periodic local controls of parts of Britain by the Romans had to be expanded to a period of 400 years of imaginary total domination of what was now invented as "Roman Britain"

All the British Dynasties had to be eliminated. Brutus was expelled from reality as the new political doctrine was that the city of Troy never ever existed, and it was only a fictional fairytale imaginary place that existed only in the mind of Melisigenes-Homer and therefore ALL Ancient British History that included Brutus the great grandson of Aeneas of Troy was fictional. The earlier arrival of Albyne into Britain was dismissed as legendary. The vast body of written British historical evidence was by-passed and everything was declared to be a massive forgery, and where this smear was not possible the records were declared to be muddled and confused.

In an out-of-date society where there are still noble and royal pecking orders of social precedence, it is embarrassing for English nobility to have descendants of King Iestyn ap Gwrgan around, who therefore descend from King Arthur II and Arthur I, and from the Emperor Magnus Maximus, and from Caesar Crispus, and Constantine the Great, and so on, and who also claim direct descent from what is called The Holy Family.

In 1846 in what Welsh Nationalists called The Treachery of the Blue Books, (Blue covered books were reports to the London Parliament) every Khumric Welsh school- teacher in Wales was sacked and replaced by an Englishman. The chaos of all the children speaking only Welsh and their teachers speaking only English and the quite barbaric methods used to enforce English are still remembered. The objective was to make it impossible for anyone to read the records.

The control of publishing was accomplished quite easily. Publishing began in London in AD 1474 and Parliament simply prohibited any publishing in Wales until 1692 and the damage was done. Several English Kings had previously passed laws prohibiting anyone in Wales from owning writing materials and paper, so the tactics were following a known pattern.

The control of information is in fact a major weapon of the London Government even today. To give one well know example. In the 1930's the English "prince" of the Kingdom of Wales (German actually as since the Hanoverian and Scottish marriage of 300 years earlier no British person had married into the "English" royal family), who was Edward soon to be King Edward VIII. This Prince Edward was attached to an American lady who was twice divorced, and both of them regularly visited Nazi Germany.

Edward was filmed sitting in the front row at vast Nazi meetings listening enthusiastically to Adolf Hitler ranting and raving. He was filmed walking in the front rank of a Nazi parade through city streets surrounded by high ranking Nazi Party leaders, and he actually gave the Nazi salute, and so on. Not one word of this and no photographs ever appeared in any British Newspapers of Magazines, nor did any of the popular cinema Pathe News editions ever show an film of this. The British Public were kept like cultivated mushrooms, in a dark cellar and fed on cattle manure.

During the war this dangerous idiot, who had abdicated as King, was made a nominal Brigadier in the army. Here he had access to secretive information, and, although he knew well that Mussolini's Italy was Germany's political ally, early in the war he actually informed the Italian Ambassador of the disposition of the British and French armies in Europe. How much this affected the Nazi plans to strike through the centre of the Ardennes and split the British and French armies is unclear, but it did not assist the allies. One television program blamed him squarely. In the event this serving officer in the army was on holiday in the south of France after the allied collapse and Dunkirk and he then removed himself to Portugal.

Finally he was packed off to the small island of Nassau in the Caribbean as the Governor. The point is that all this was kept totally secret from the British Public for well over 50 years. Sky TV has shown the film titled "The Traitor King" a few times, but it is very unlikely that that great organ of information and education, the BBC will ever show this interesting film.

The BBC State Radio Monopoly played a major role in the final onslaughts against the authentic, accurate, and provable, Ancient British Histories, in the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's. No other radio stations were allowed to broadcast until well into the 1970's and when Television arrived the BBC TV was again a State Monopoly and in this way what was told to the British Public was still highly selective and carefully controlled. The assaults made over the airways against ancient British Historical records were nothing other than a National disgrace.

One thing always remained a huge problem for the control freaks of the Church and the London Establishment. That was the gigantic figure of "King Arthur", and no matter that they did he simply would not go away.

First they tried to remove "King Arthur" (both of them) out of Khumric Wales and into England, and place a set of bovine bones in Glastonbury Abbey that was founded in AD 941 some 418 years after Arthur II died, and around 541 years after Arthur I died. This is NOT the Glastenburi of centuries earlier in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and even that other Glastonburi is dated over two hundred years after Arthur II.

This works with American tourists and English nationalists. Then they simply stated, with the aid of the BBC and the English Universities, that all the British Histories were forged and false and therefore a King Arthur in those histories was also a historical fake. They then encouraged a thinking that King Arthur (both of them) was a legendary figure, then he was a fairy tale figure and finally with the aid of an American buffoon writer Arthur became a comic figure of fun. This combined with the State control of education and the suitably forged "official" versions of the new order bogus Histories actually finally worked.

The latest frantic antic of the Anglo-Saxon monarchists is to re-date all the 200 plus ancient royal stones in Wales. They have already tried mistranslation. So when an ancient stone names King Ithael and St Illtyd and Arthmael –Iron Bear –Arthur II, and we know that Arthur II died in 579 and his first cousin St Illtyd buried him, and the brothers King Ithael and King Morgan succeeded Arthur II, it is a complete nonsense to take this stone of around AD 580 and re-date it to AD 850-900. This complete fraud is going on uninterrupted across Wales as the "authorities" have realized that people are taking note of the Wilson and Blackett Researches and looking at these stones as evidence.

When Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett decided to begin publishing in 1981 they stirred up a veritable can of worms, or a nest of snakes, and the London Establishment and the Church reacted to the threat of the truth becoming known. Now the politicians and the religionists have bigger problems. They have to prevent the World from knowing of the catalogue of gross illegalities and serious criminality that they have perpetrated against Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett.

They also have the problem of there being a modern system of international information and communication that will allow for the entire story of how these political and religious villains and cheats have destroyed British History and with that they have obliterated the vital evidence to decipher other ancient historical texts in Etruria Italy, in Asia Minor, in Palestine, and in Egypt and America. The Internet is a system of freedom that they cannot control.

Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett had no idea whatsoever of the depth of the evil and corruption in this gigantic political and religious conspiracy when they began their detailed researches in 1976. When anyone states that there is no such thing as Conspiracies then he is either a complete uninformed fool or else a total liar.

The fact is that the British were unfortunate when debris from a comet devastated and destroyed much of Britain and the powerful Arthurian State in AD 562.

The academics of the United Kingdom will try to despise the evidence of the comet of AD 562 that came from the North East going South West. At this time the American historians and archaeologists working in Bolivia know, state, and prove, that the Bolivian civilization that built cities and towns, fortresses and pyramids, roads and everything that any developed civilization made, was utterly destroyed by a comet coming from the North East and going South West in AD 562. Exactly as in Britain the population was decimated and the lands were diseased and uninhabitable for around ten years.

We have a Comet in the same year going in the same direction, and destroying both Bolivia and Britain with the same results. Anyone is free to get a globe or a map of our Planet Earth and draw in line from North East to South West across from Britain to Bolivia.

So beginning with Brutus, the great grandson of Aeneas of Troy, arriving in Britain around 500 BC up to Iestyn ap Gwrgan - Justin son of Aurelian - who was deposed in AD 1091, we have 76 successive Welsh-Khumry Kings. The last Welsh King was Morgan who was murdered by Edward I of England in AD 1300.

The English claim that Wales is or ever was a "principality" is total hog wash and so is the title "prince" in the Khumric Welsh Kingdom.

This is bad news for the Hanoverian Monarchy in England, as the nonsense of Edward I of England creating his second son Edward II (eldest was Alfonso) as the "prince" of Wales is exposed. The Church wants to be rid of this Bad News History, and so does the London Establishment.

[ Top ]

The Anvil Stone used to point towards St Peters Church where King Arthur II was commemorated with a memorial stone. (Click to enlarge)

Anvil Stone shows sword mark - possible origin of the Excalibur Sword in the Stone legend. (Click to enlarge)

Stones of both Arthurs. (Left) Alan Wilson with King Arthur II Stone. (Right) Baram Blackett with King Arthur I stone. Both found at the Church of St Peters excavation in 1990.

Stone of King Tewdrig, Grandfather to King Arthur II. (Click to enlarge)

Stone of King Bodvoc (Budicius), a King of Brittany allied to Tewdrig. (Click to enlarge)

The excavation of St Peters Church in 1990, under the direction of Dr Eric Talbot.

Ancient Silver Cross found at the St Peters excavation in 1990.

[ Top ]