King Arthur's Official Website!

Alan Wilson & Baram Blackett

Please remember there are separate pages to this website and not just the current page you now see. These can be accessed very easily by clicking the topics at the top of this page, or at the left side.

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

Alan Wilson
Alan Wilson

Welcome to our Official Website

The British King Arthur

There was not one mighty King Arthur of Britain, but two very powerful, and remarkably successful Kings both known as Arthur.

One was Arthur son of Magnus Maximus and Ceindrech daughter of Rheiden, who was born around AD 344 and who died around AD 400.

This Arthur conquered all of Western Europe between AD 383-388, and captured Paris, the stronghold of the Lady St Genevieve - who becomes the Lady Guinevere of the confused Romantic Arthurian tales we have all come to know.

The other was his direct sixth generation descendant Arthur II son of King Meurig (Maurice) and Queen Onbrawst, born c AD 503 and died AD 579. Both copiously recorded.

The deliberate mistake was to weld these two powerful kings into one 250 years old impossible "King Arthur" who fought the Romans and killed their Emperor Gratian at Soissons in AD 383, and who then fought the Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and others in the mid 6th Century.

All this is well recorded and was well known by British scholars, but most modern academics do not grasp these simple foundation facts, because they do not read the ancient manuscripts, and have instead become indoctrinated into a belief system based on incorrect information.

Most people read books written by modern authors and academics, most of whom cite one another without actually going back to check out the earliest sources available for themselves. It is easier for people to believe the "experts" truly know their subject, than to start from scratch by laboriously investigating all the old records themselves. Well Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett chose to do just that, and this website holds only a fraction of their research.

This research is very unwelcome to the entrenched academic, political, and religious establishment in Britain, and should give the reader some idea of the mass array of other similar criminal frauds that English academics have dutifully perpetrated on behalf of their Political and Religious masters for three hundred years. Be sure to read the section concerning the German Hanoverians on the history page of this website, which casts more light on the origins of the problems.

British Coelbren Alphabet is Ancient and Authentic

[ Top ]

Coelbren Alphabet
Basic Coelbren Alphabet.
The Elucidator, a frame made of sticks, some three sided, others squared, on the flat surface of which were carved the Bardic aphorisms. Three sided ones contained a complete triad, the four sided a stanza - see Ezekiel XXXVII 16.
(Click to enlarge)

Along with the confusion of wholesale rejection of factual records the ancient British Coelbren Alphabet was also rejected, and in fact it became a specific target for obliteration. So the prize and objective of Professor Schoolcraft's search, an ancient Language and its Alphabet, which had been carefully and faithfully preserved for 3600 years in Britain, and was a marvellous archaeological and historical treasure and relic, was under organized official attack.

The British Alphabet is clearly traceable all along the ancient Historical migration routes, in Iberia -Spain, in Etruscan Italy, in Rhaetia-Switzerland, in the Aegean, in Trojan-Phrygia in Asia Minor, and further back into ancient Assyria and Palestine, with pointers towards Egypt, and yet this marvellous relic was targeted for destruction.

There are traditions of the Ancient British Coelbren Alphabet being identical with Ancient Etruscan, Rhaetian, and Pelasgian Alphabets. Even Julius Caesar makes mention of this alphabet. These inscriptions are also scattered along the ancient British migrations trails.

The Alphabet was used in ancient Assyria by the Ten Tribes of Israel between 720-687 BC, who the Assyrians knew as the Khumry. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Ancient Coelbren Alphabet was forged, and this is dealt with in detail in the book "The King Arthur Conspiracy" here.

Etruscan Mirror
An Etruscan Mirror
(Click to enlarge)

The Nation of Khumry, misnamed as the "Welsh", are reliably traced back in time and distance as the "lost" Ten Tribes of Israel. Before they arrived in Canaan to found Israel, they were in Egypt. The Ark of the Covenant was brought into Britain by the migrating Khumry people around 500 BC. It is still here today and has been located.

The Khumry, who are misnamed as the "Welsh" by using the Anglo-Saxon High German word "wallische" meaning "strangers", are concealed under this gross misappellation, and they are simply the allegedly "lost" Ten Tribes. This is an absolute fact and Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett and their team have 100% definitely located this Ark of Moses.

Sadly this savage assault upon British cultural heritage preserved in a small ancient nation can be documented in great detail and with unmistakable clarity.

The political ideologies of that era demanded that there should be absolute conformity in every way. Ancient Gaelic was to be eradicated in Ireland and Scotland, and this almost succeeded. The Scots were forbidden to wear kilts and tartans, and bagpipes were banned, which is precisely why they wear and play these items so determinedly today.

The Khumry posed the larger threat with their dogged adherence to their language and history, and because of the very uncomfortable facts that those histories preserved.

Even today when everyone with one ounce of intelligence knows that great numbers of ancient stones and manuscripts clearly exhibit the Coelbren Alphabet between AD 200 and AD 948, and even earlier, the general University line remains the falsehood that this Alphabet was forged around AD 1800.

This disregards the Bodleian Library MSS no 572, and well known poetic references to the Alphabet in pre AD 1367, in AD 1425, in AD 1450, in AD 1475, and so on. It also disregards the great discovery in 1945 by Mr Mohammed Ali of an entire Gnostic Christian library at Nag Hamadi in Egypt.

Hebrew scroll
Hebrew scroll shows Coelbren similarities, though more cursive. Generally speaking, an inscribed stone would not be cursive.
(Click to enlarge)

This collection in fourteen leather satchels in a five foot high clay jar was buried around AD 400 and rediscovered in 1945, and in it and the Mannasses Manuscript contains a description of the Alphabet allegedly forged by Edward Williams around 1800. This almost comical ostrich like posture then renders all the many valuable inscriptions in Britain, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, the Aegean, Turkey, and Assyria, and elsewhere, including Palestine and Egypt, indecipherable.

  • Julius Caesar described the ancient British Alphabet circa 55 BC.

  • Ammianus Marcellinus also described the British Alphabet and actually stated that the Greeks got their Alphabet from the British.

  • An Alphabet is identically described, and matching British records, in the Nag Hamadi documents of the Gnostic church that were buried before AD 400 and discovered in 1945.

  • Large numbers of Khumric mediaeval poets mentioned and described the ancient British Alphabet, starting with Daffydd ap Gwilym died AD 1367 and going onto around AD 1475.

  • Rhys Goch of Oswestry wrote a poem lampooning this Coelbren Alphabet in AD 1582.

  • Therefore allegations that this ancient. British Alphabet is a fake that was forged around AD 1800 are ludicrous.

  • The Ancient British Alphabet is also found inscribed on ancient stones in England, Wales, and Scotland, of around AD 200, AD 400-600 and as late as AD 1120.

  • Several writers noted the fact that the ancient British Alphabet is virtually identical with the Etruscan alphabet inscriptions found in Italy, and dating between 650 BC to around 50 BC.

  • They also noted that the same ancient Alphabet is found on ancient inscriptions in the Aegean and Asia Minor (Turkey) dating back to the 600-700 BC period.

  • When Austin Layard excavated Nineveh in 1846 he found the royal archives of the Assyrian Emperors in over 25,000 baked clay tablets. The same ancient British Alphabet appears on some of these ancient Assyrian archives and appears to date back to the period starting around c 740 BC.

  • This same Alphabet is therefore found all the way back along the ancient migration trails of the British people as described in the British Histories.

  • The ciphers of the Alphabet were preserved by Llewellyn Sion of Glamorgan around AD 1540 1560. Therefore it is known which cipher means which modern letter of our present Alphabet.

  • The clear evidence is that if the same migrating people spoke the same Khumric language and used the same Alphabet then it should be possible to use the still extant Khumric "Welsh" language to read the inscriptions in Britain, in Etruria-Italy and in Rhaetia-Switzerland, in the Aegean and in Asia Minor-Turkey, in Assyria, and in Palestine.

  • This can be done and the British Ancient Histories are authentic and accurate.

The allegation that the British are the only Nation on the planet Earth to have created a vast complex forged history, where no history actually existed, is an outrage. Consider this absurd proposition that several thousand historians, monks, and bards, living over an era of 1500 years, and spread over thousands of square miles of country, all conspired to produce a huge precisely interlocking, detailed, totally forged history.

That they then very carefully backed up this monumental forgery with hundreds of ancient inscribed stones, hundreds of large named burial mounds, stone coffins with skeletons, several hundred ancient fortresses all positioned in a strategic pattern, castles, manors, countless ancient churches, and even ancient roads, is quite untenable. This is what the public are invited to believe.

A strange Khumric Triad notation of around 1000 years ago indicates the Egyptian connection and specifically refers to the Hieroglyphic writings. The clear inference is that Khumric is the basic language of the Hieroglyphics at that time.

"Hu Gadarn yn Arwain y Cymry i Ynys Prydain"
(Click to enlarge)

Professor Sir John Morris Jones wrote a Thesis in 1898 that demonstrated how the complex Khumric Syntax and that of Ancient Egypt were identical. Plus the fact that the same seven vowels - A E I O U W Y - were used in Ancient Egypt and the Khumry. Click here for more information.

English academics also claimed that the city of Troy never ever existed and that it was only a fictional fairy tale city in the mind of the ancient Greek poet Homer, and therefore because the British claimed a descent from Trojans led into Britain by Brutus around 500 BC, all ancient British history was fictional and based on a lie.

Yet when Heinrich Schliemann went to Turkey in 1874 and by 1876 he was able to announce his correct discovery of ancient Troy, the English assertion that Troy was a mythical non existent city should have exploded, and as late as 1892 writers were still bleating that as Troy never existed then all British history was false.

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

Very simple research shows that a number of other ancient writers wrote about the Trojan War and the Fall of Troy, and some of them wrote before Homer.

The forthcoming book "The Trojan War of 650 BC" here proves without doubt the correct place and time of this event, along with the true characters involved.

The fact that the ancient British Coelbren Alphabet, which was described by Julius Caesar and by Ammianus Marcellinus, and which still exists on stones and artifacts going back to around 800 BC is universally omitted from all the catalogues which claim to include all of the Alphabets of the Ancient World, raises questions which need to be answered, no matter how embarrassing this is for university employees.

Were Julius Caesar, Strabo, and Ammianus Marcellinus, and others all liars? Are the pre-Christian British coins dating back to circa 200 BC all counterfeit forgeries? Are all the stones found in England, Scotland, and Wales, all fakes, although the majority were known and recorded many centuries before AD 1800?

I think not.

Honorius Sent Letter to People in Brittium of Southern Italy, Not Britain

[ Top ]

It is alleged that the British were helpless after the "Roman withdrawal" in AD 411, and the weak Roman Emperor Honorius wrote a letter to these helpless weak British telling them that he could no longer help them against their enemies.

This is a blatant fabrication.

Honorius in Rome had major problems as Alaric the German King was ravaging Italy. As Alaric moved southward towards Sicily, Honorius sent a letter to the citizens of Rhegium the local capital of Brittium on the Strait of Messina. He warned the citizens of Rhegium in Brittium in Italy of the approach of Alaric and his army, and told them that he could not assist them.

This letter to Brittium in Italy, has somehow been bent and twisted into an imaginary letter to the powerful British State from their enemy Honorius with whom they were at war in Gaul, to tell them that he could not assist them. Anyone is free to read the accounts in Olympiodorus and Zosimus of the letter that was sent to Italian Rhegium in Brittium.

The British were not a weak illiterate nation, small in numbers as ill-informed academics have stated for many years, and instead the British were a strong, culturally advanced nation with metal-workers, miners, literate with universities, and militarily powerful.

They thrashed Julies Caesar and totally out-manouvered him in 55 & 54 BC. Read Strabo's account of the British, and British accounts of themselves.

Timeline showing rule of Britain
The idea of 400 years of Roman control of Britain is utterly ludicrous.
(Click to enlarge)

Aegidius received letter from Britain in AD 474, not Aetius 30 years before

[ Top ]

The problem of the Welsh Annals however was that no dates as we might recognise them are given. All we have is a Listing of Years and major events in those Years. So the Annals begin with Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and so on. This means that it is vitally important to try to fix Year 1, to establish the chronology.

This was done by trying to date a much discussed letter sent from Britain to a powerful ruler in Gaul in the 5th Century. In fact several statements made in the Gildas Manuscript cast great doubt upon its authenticity as a Sixth Century document. At best it has been much tampered with. Although the Gildas text names the ruler as Agitus, which is obviously the powerful King Aegidius in northern Gaul, the English academic choice is instead, predictably and absurdly, the Roman Aetius.

This selection of Roman Hun general Aetius, by the anti-British and pro-Roman, pro-Anglo Saxon academics, rather than the obvious Aegidius, who was King of all the Franks for eight years, is all the more peculiar as both the Brut Tyssilio and the Brut Gruffydd ap Arthur name the ruler in Gaul, who was the recipient of the letter, as Aganypus, Acanypys and Agitus, which is undoubtedly Aegidius, and nothing like Aetius.

These British-Khumric texts pre-date the much vaunted Gildas Text, which is only an alleged Fourteenth Century copy, and therefore they should be accorded more weight.

The matter is important because a letter sent to Aetius would have to be sent around AD 440-444, and a letter sent to Aegidius would be sent around AD 479. If the sending of this letter influenced the setting of Year 1 of the Welsh Annals, then every subsequent dating could be some 35 years out.

By the academics wrongly choosing Aetius over Aegidius they have misdated Year 1 of the Welsh Annals to around AD 440-444, instead of the correct date of around AD 479.

This obvious error then distorts all subsequent British History by around 35 years, and the dates of Arthur II are mangled 35 years too soon, and the great battles of Baedan and Camlann Valley are reduced to phantoms fought 35 years too early, and so on. Chaos results and all British 5th and 6th Century history is totally distorted.

The letter was sent to the friendly Aegidius Afranius Flavius Syagrius from Britain around AD 479, and no British regional king in the west midlands would ever have written to their Roman ENEMY Aetius around AD 444.

Flavius Afranius Syagrius Aegidius was King of the Seven Cities of Northern Gaul, and for eight years he was elected King of the Franks in place of the dissolute Frank King Childeric, who had outraged his subjects by wantonly seducing their daughters. The reign of Aegidius over the Franks was from c AD 457-465, and Aegidius remained as King of the Seven Cities until his death around AD 480. King Aegidius was succeeded briefly by Duke Victorius, and then by his own son Syagrius, who went on to become the comic Romance figure of "Sir Sagremore the Foolish".

Arthur I & Arthur II, not one mythical King Arthur

[ Top ]

Arthur I - born around AD 344 and died around AD 400 - was the eldest son of Emperor Magnus Maximus, the only son of Crispus Nobilis Flavius Caesar, who was the eldest son of the British Emperor Constantine the Great and the British Queen Minerva, who was the eldest son of the Emperor Constantius Chlorus and the British Empress Helen of the Cross. Arthur I was the chief general of Magnus Maximus, and invaded Gaul in AD 383, capturing Paris the stronghold of the Lady St.Genevieve - who becomes Lady Guinevere of the confused Romantic Arthurian tales.

This Arthur - copiously recorded in ancient Manuscript genealogies and known in British Manuscripts as the King of Greece - then defeated the massed armies of the Roman Emperor Gratian at Soissons, and chased him South to Lugdunum (Lyons), where he killed him.

The campaigns of this Arthur I through Switzerland and on down through Italy, over to Greece, and up into the Balkans are well known and recorded. He fought two major battles against Theodosius of Constantinople in Illyria = Yugoslavia, where he was greatly outnumbered and finally defeated. Arthur I known to Latins as Andragathius made his way back to Britain in AD 388.

Bruts of England
Bruts - Official histories of England - state Arthur would be crowned King of Glamorgan.
(Click to enlarge)

The second Arthur was of course Arthur II son of King Meurig (Maurice) son of King Tewdrig, and so on back to Brutus. He was a sixth generation direct male line descendant of Arthur I, who was born c AD 503 and died in AD 579. This Arthur II fought the Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and others. He also had trouble over his heirs, and fought the Civil War battles with his nephew Modred ap Llew ap Cynfarch Oer of Llongborth, at Llongborth in Cardigan Bay, and at Camlann in the Camlann Valley below Camlann mountain just 10 miles south of Dollgelly.

Fatefully it was in his time that the Comet debris struck Britain in AD 562, decimating the entire population and rendering much of Britain an uninhabitable great wasteland for between seven to eleven years. Evidence lies around in mountainous quantity. Winston Churchill recognized the dangers of fabricated history when he inserted into his History volumes the reference to King Arthur being from South Wales, indicating Arthur II.

As the famous letter from Britain must have been sent to the illustrious Flavius Afranius Syagrius Aegidius, King of the Seven Cities of Northern Gaul, then it must have been sent around AD 474 or later. This would make the actual date given for the Battle of Baedan in the Welsh Annals to be around AD 550 or later. With Morris giving a totally conjectural AD 495 he casually and ineptly created chaos.

Brychan II was three different people, not one Brychan with three wives

[ Top ]

Matters that the average reader might not be aware of also serve to mangle and distort the very well and clearly recorded British Ancient Histories.

Tired academic dogma propounds just one Brychan who is said to have had three wives, and twenty-four daughters and twelve sons, and all the marriages of these 36 sons and daughters to other noble persons are recorded, and the genealogies of their spouses are listed. The result is pandemonium in the order of the noble families and the cause is very clear.

In addition, the Lives of Saints allot Brychan a mistress and an additional illegitimate son. This does not explain the three graves of "Brychan", and one manuscript lists two of these graves in succession.

The solution is simple, there were three Prince Brychans. This is so obvious as to be well nigh unbelievable it has not been pointed out before.

Brychan I of Brittany lived around AD 360 420, and was well recorded as doing so in Brittany. He was a brother of Conan Meriadauc who was made King of Brittany by Magnus Maximus in AD 383. His wife was the Visigoth (Spanish) Princess Poestri, and many of the 24 daughters and 12 sons are his.

Brychan II who married his cousin Eurbrawst - a sister of Arthur II - was very well recorded as the ruler of Brecon in South East Wales and he lived around AD 490 550. He was the son of Queen Marchell a daughter of King Tewdrig, and sister to King Meurig. She married Enllech Coronog (the crowned) son of Hydwn Dwn, son of Ceredic, son of Cuneda, and Ceredic had seized lands in Ireland. St Patrick is recorded as rebuking Ceredic for his harsh treatment of the Irish. Not surprisingly a "Roman" style fort was discovered a few years ago near Dublin.

Brychan III was a grandson of Llywarch Hen (the aged) and he appears to have lived on the family patrimony of the Isle of Man. He would have been active around AD 600-650.

There are three recorded graves of Brychan. One is in Brittany, and it would logically suit Brychan I the brother of King Conan. A second Brychan grave is in Wales at Mur Castell, and would match with Brychan II son of Marchell and Enllech Coronog. The third grave recorded for Brychan is on the Calf of Man, which is the small island just south of the Isle of Man, and the Isle of Man was the territory of the family of Llywarch Hen. As Brychan III was a grandson of Llywarch Hen, this makes sense.

By alleging that these three well-known Princes were one person, almost all of British noble genealogy, that is the backbone of British ancient records, is thrown into chaos. The records of three graves should alone have been be enough to sort out this deliberate historical distortion.

The "Brychan" disaster is a serious one, as in many cases the husbands and wives of his alleged multitude of daughters and sons are known, along with their fathers, mothers, and grandfathers, and so on. If there was only a Brychan II of around AD 500-560, then there is chronological pandemonium.

Attempts to correlate the families named in the many marriages of the progeny of one "Brychan" have resulted in historical chaos.

When the three Princes are identified, then the nightmare goes away.

Comet of AD 562 that devastated Britain & Bolivia

[ Top ]

Time and time again the researches of Baram Blackett and Alan Wilson have been shown to be accurate and correct and the erroneous negative abstracts of those who prefer to avoid the facts have been shown to be the mimicry of fools and incompetents.

The culturally advanced Nation of Britain was struck by debris from a Comet in AD 562 and much of our great island was devastated and huge numbers of the population were killed in the vast catastrophe and many more died of the plagues that followed and most of Britain was uninhabitable for seven to eleven years. There was NO Anglo-Saxon conquest as fondly imagined by the English academics.

Three boatloads of relative primitive Jutes arriving in Kent as hired coastguards for King Trehaearn, alias Gwrtheyrn, (monarch of men), alias Vortigern, (high ruler), could not have managed any conquest.

Dendrochronology shows that Britain and Ireland's forests were devastated by the Comet at that time. Professor Victor Clube of Oxford University Astrophysics Dept was brave enough to voice the opinion that a Comet had devastated Britain around that time. The historical records are stark and clear.

Nothing however obvious deters the loons and clowns of British archaeology, and the historians are quick to "specialise" elsewhere away from the dangers of discovery. The records show that the fortresses, cities, towns, villas, and houses, of Britain were shattered by the tremendous explosive impacts, as indeed they were in fact. Disease ravaged the population and much of the land was uninhabitable for between seven to eleven years.

The Comet that caused catastrophe in Britain came from the North East going South West. Now, at this time American university archaeologists from Austin, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Chicago, are very extensively excavating ancient Bolivia where in the very same year of AD 562 a Comet devastated almost the entire country. The mud-brick pyramids, temples, fortresses, cities, and towns, were shattered, and the population decimated. The land was polluted and it became uninhabitable for several years, and the survivors were forced to flee to the lowland shores areas.

It does not take any great effort to get a globe of Planet Earth and to draw a line from North East of Britain going South West across the Atlantic to automatically cross Bolivia from the same North East direction, going South West. Two identical vast disasters in the same year caused by the same Comet at the same time, but one is recognized because it does not pose any political or religious threat, and the other is completely ignored because it does.

This is dramatic proof that our native British Ancient Histories are again impeccably correct. The erudite scholars of yesteryear left cogent evidence and proofs that left no doubt as to the authenticity of our native British Histories.

Historical evidence of a devastating comet near collision with planet Earth in AD 562 is important to understanding British History, and it is also of importance to scientists including astronomers and medical researchers.

Read more on the Comet & King Arthur II in the history section here at the top of this page

Arthur II very easily dated "546 years after the incarnation of the Lord"

[ Top ]

We know from numbers of Genealogies that Arthur II was a sixth generation direct male descendant of Arthur I son of Magnus Maximus, and the Llandaff Charters offer a date of AD 503 for his birth.

The Bruts of England offer no other early date apart from Arthur II's death "546 years after the Incarnation of the Lord". This would be the year 33 + 546 = AD 579 in accord with British religious ideas.

The incarnation would be at the time of the crucifixion around AD 33, and not at the time of the birth of Jesus the Nazarene, which is in itself uncertain. Some 12th Century Romance stories and historical traditions, place Arthur as 76 years old when he died, and again the AD 503 of the Llandaff Charters gives 503 + 76 = AD 579.

There is then the Glamorgan Record of the aged Owain Vinddu the brother of Arthur I being killed fighting the Irish in AD 434. Amongst several accurate dating calculations, Nennius places Maelgwn Gwynedd's accession to the throne at 146 years after Cuneda (AD 434), and again 434 + 146 brings Maelgwn's accession to AD 580, matching with Arthur II being dead in AD 579.

King Arthur II
King Arthur II returning from the Battle of Baedon.
(Click to enlarge)

This along with other evidence such as the letter sent to Aegidius to help date the annals, all adds weight to the argument, and in fact there is no argument as everything fits neatly into place once the dates have been corrected.

Forbidden research - why nobody else is doing this research

[ Top ]

Alan Wilson & Baram Blackett are the only researchers in this area.
NOBODY ELSE is doing this research. PERIOD!

Some of the reasons are:

  • Most academics do not realize there is a problem to correct.

  • Its difficult and hard research, and nobody wants to start from scratch.

  • Its especially bad for the Catholic Church, Politics, and puts the Royal Family under scrutiny, and therefore very undesirable research.

  • Most academics do not read or even look at the original manuscripts - they prefer modern books whose authors quote other modern authors, who quote other modern authors, ad infinitum. This means if modern academics use only the modern translations, based on earlier translations mostly edited by early Catholic Clergymen, then they themselves will be unknowingly giving pupils wrong information.

  • Without evidence, and stemming from one man only, these authentic ancient histories are believed to be fakes, which discourages academics from ever seriously studying them in the first place.

The fact is that all Ancient British History has been deliberately smeared and distorted by foreign influences to conceal the fact that an injured man and his family and followers arrived in Britain from Jerusalem in AD 37 and brought Apostolic Christianity into Britain. Unwelcome graves that are said not to exist are listed and described, and they do exist.

There are a great many people alive today who descend from the fourteen sons of King Iestyn ap Gwrgan (Justin son of Aurelian) who was deposed in AD 1091, and their numerous cousins and other relatives.

King Iestyn descended directly from Arthur II, who in turn traces back to Emperor Constantius Chlorus and the British Empress Helen of the Cross, and so on back to several ancient families. Several British Saints and many Royal and noble families traced ancestral descent from the Holy Family. The two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, then 16, 32, 64, in preceding generations allows for this.

That there are people walking around in Britain today with such spectacular ancestral descent, does not sit well with the imported German monarchy.

The major problems in fact the only problems - that confront researchers in Ancient British History are the series of deliberate misrepresentations. We list only a few of the major deceptions that have been deliberately foisted upon the unsuspecting British Public over the centuries by fanatical religionists and callous politicians.

Read the section on this site labelled "Conspiracy" here which outlines what happened to Alan Wilson & Baram Blackett, simply for writing about their research.

The situation is perhaps symptomatic of the strange mentality, and the inferiority complex, which for centuries allowed large numbers of British warships to be named after alien and foreign ancient Greek and Roman heroes and deities. Why not name British warships after Chinese Emperors or the Mongolian Khans, or whoever?

Truthful, provable, accurate, authentic, British History is less welcome than the rattlesnake in the Lucky Dip Barrel at the village fete. The religionists and the monarchist politicians have worked mightily to try destroy British History, for centuries, but thank heavens for the Internet, as it can rise like a Phoenix from the flames. None of the liars will dare to face Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett in Open Public Debate.

Ancient British history is as sound and solid as any and every other ancient History, and from results achieved so far it is more accurate than most. It holds the keys to unlock the secrets of the past, and it needs to be respected as the treasure that it is. Perhaps it is time for everyone to decide whether or not they are British.

[ Top ]
Website designed & created by Paul Graham, copyright (C) 2008.