Uthyr PenDragons (King Arthur's) Real Kingdom.
By Alan Hassell
Copyright ? 12/4/2002 all rights reserved.
Despite all the documentation about the Real King Arthur, the BBC has just spent a fortune making yet another
documentary about him in the Anglo Saxon vein. One thing they finally admit, and that is, that such a person did exist.
Previously it was all conjecture and a myth that no one was prepared to stick their necks out and say for sure, "Yes
there was a King Arthur and he lived here."
Well known Welsh actor Richard Harris, did a fantastic job narrating and starring in the documentary. However, he
only follows the scripts that others have written. I first became interested in Arthur, many years ago, in fact the man
has been a thorn in my side trying to get to the bottom of the legend and find out for myself the truth about the real
man ever since.
It's amazing what they can do with computer imaging these days. Years after the event, the Titanic was restored back
to reality to make that first and last fateful voyage with great realism. In fact, the film looked so real that one could
even imagine actually being on the vessel so much research had gone into the production to make it as authentic as
I say this because in the documentary many computer special effects were used to illustrate many things such as
buildings and how they might have appeared at the time. One must remember although these are only the creations
and imaginations of artists and may not be as exact or look anything like what the original structures.
About four years ago, there was an archaeological dig at Tintagel in Cornwall. I was there at the time and was
informed that apart from pottery shards, nothing relating to Arthur had been found. One thing was established, though
it confirmed that a Dark Age settlement had been found owing to the pottery shards.
Strange then, that in this documentary a piece of slate was found bearing a name presumed to be Arthur's. The only
strange thing about it was the fact that the words carved onto the slate looked like they had not long been made.
For a start the slate looked pristine apart from the lettering which was lighter shade of grey. Anything buried for a
long period of time, such as slate, slowly absorbs water. This in turn darkens the slate. Any lettering would eventually
become the same colour as the slate itself. Also the fact that the lettering would have rounded edges through wear and
Another factor is the actual composition of slate itself, slate is made from layers of mud compressed over a large
period of time.
Chewton, in Australia, is an old gold mining area. Sate plays an important part of the geology in this area where gold is
associated. In certain parts one can see the slate where it has been broken into wafer thin layers through weathering.
This is quite a natural thing for slate to do.
The question remaining is how come this piece of slate that was supposed to have been buried for over 1500 years is
in such pristine condition as if it had only just been made? Even if the slate was found upside down the back and
sides of the slate would be of a different colour to the engraved face. It is also preposterous because even on today's
coffins identification is always on the outside never on the inside.
Several years ago it was reported that a similar stone or carving had been found, this later turned out to be a fake made
by a resident of Tintagel to keep the legend and history of Arthur alive in Tintagel.
Now why would anyone want to do that? Simple tourism, for without the legend of Arthur, Tintagel would have little
to attract tourists apart from its medieval buildings scattered around the place. Almost every establishment in the
small town survives solely on the legend and they make a huge profit from souvenirs sold to gullible tourists thinking
they had bought something relating to the real King Arthur.
During the winter months Tintagel becomes an almost deserted ghost town. Without the tourists during the summer
months and the income derived from it, Tintagel would have died a slow death long ago. Hence the interest in keeping
the legend alive even if they have no claim to it. Tintagel is in effect stealing Arthur's name and reputation and in the
process cashing in on it.
A fraud on a massive scale is being perpetrated in England by English Heritage, Historians and archaeologists refusing
to accept the fact that The Real King Arthur's Kingdom is in Wales and not in Cornwall, England.
How, anyone can draw the conclusion that a local port had existed there, is beyond belief. Anyone visited the area,
will notice the rugged coastline and breaker's roaring in from the Atlantic Ocean and crashing against the huge defensive
cliffs. A reef not far offshore also further protects the area.
The waves here come in with such force that it would be very dangerous even today for anyone to approach the area
by ship which would have been at the mercy of the wind and strong currents in the days of sail or manpower. If, as
the archaeologist claim there was a port situated here, why then have no shipwrecks ever been discovered in the area?
For the cargoes of these vessels today, apart from their history, would be worth a small fortune?
There would be a ships graveyard for many would have come to grief on those treacherous reefs or smashed to pieces
against the highly protective cliffs which make the area safe from invading intruders. How come no serious underwater
searches have taken place looking for those sunken ships of which there would be many?
Any produce of any kind or description would have come in overland, the sea passage and unloading of any cargo, yet
alone the landing would have too dangerous. Tintagel, is a difficult place to get to even today, it was a fortress. As
such it would have been built to make it as difficult as possible for anyone, invaders included to approach, yet alone
However in the dark ages horses would have been used. It was a stronghold and legend has it that Edward the First
built a fortress there, as he did in many other places in England. However, Tintagel was noted for having a monastery
or church, there is still one standing there for all to see. The British, were very religious Christian people in those
days. Attempts by the British to convert the Anglo Saxons to Christianity failed.
Notice the word British. Why did I not refer to them as English? Simple, when the Roman's occupied Britain it was
known as Albany or Britannia. This fact remains on their coinage even today as testimony to their period of
Britain only became known as England long after Arthur's death when the Anglo Saxon's invaded the shores in force
and virtually took it over. England came from the Angles. It was known as Angle-land till it was shortened to its
present form. It must be remembered that the Anglo Saxon's were Arthur's enemies and he fought many battles against
them in an attempt to remove them from Briton as it was known.
Arthur was such an important figure that his reputation and legend have been slowly and meticulously weaved into
English History and his real Identity as a British King in his own kingdom shoved aside and buried in the background.
Geoffrey of Monmouth failed to understand that there were in fact three King Arthur's covering a total of 747 years.
In june 388 A.D. Arthur the first fought a great battle at Sisca modern day Yugoslavia and was killed in the battle.
Somehow, Geoffrey confused Arthur the second with the first and blended he two together.
The real contradiction is the fact that early historians confused the word Cerniw. Cerniw, appears many times in
ancient documents, it also has many and varied spellings, such as, Cernyw, Kerniw, Kernyw. These early historians
mistakenly came to conclusion that Cerniw was in Cornwall.
When in actual fact its an area in Wales and has been named on maps since day one and is still listed as such on
ordnance survey maps even today. However none of these so called highly educated scholars bothered to ask one
simple question? "Where was cerniw?" Had they bothered to ask they would have found out, that it is situated in
Wales, where it has always been.
Maybe they did? But went about a slow methodical task of attempting to add further confusion to the real Arthurian
legend? It's also very strange that the greatest collection of documents relating to Arthurian history exist in Wales.
Many, like the Llandaff Charters were actually written during Arthur's lifetime. There are numerous entries relating to
Arthur, his father Meurig, and his grandfather Tewdrig, together with the women in their lives. Gilda's was
contempary to Arthur and lived during his reign.
His writing's then would be very accurate accounts of what took place. However it is claimed Arthur beheaded the
brother of Gilda's, Huail ap Caw on a stone at Ruthin. The stone is still there to this day. However Gilda's would not
have been happy with Arthur for his actions.
Sir, Thomas Mallory wrote, "Morte d Arthur" and was published by Caxton in 1485 A.D.. He wrote this whilst in
prison awaiting his fate and the king's decision whether he should live or die. You see in reality Mallory was a
treacherous individual who took part in civil wars, was a thief, a cattle rustler, a murderer and god only knows what
other evil things he did.
However he was a very well educated individual. Using the excuse of writing the book, he was able to gain valuable
time to extend his life, which was otherwise expendable. He also wrote it realizing whatever he wrote would have to
be favourable to the king otherwise he would face execution at any time. People such as this today are known as con
He must have been a dammed good one for once he had completed his task his life was spared. In order to write any
book with any authenticity Mallory must have been given access to manuscripts available at the time in order to get
his facts right in some sort of order. In it he wrote that Arthur's father was Uther Pendragon.
What Mallory did not know or understand, was that Uther Pendragon is a title, not a name as such. It means
Victorious or Wonderful Head Dragon and had been given to not just one person but Three individuals. These
individuals had earned the right to that title by being victorious leaders of famous battles and were either kings or
Much the same as Generals gain their rank in the military today. All three were famous Welsh Kings, who's identities
are known together with their actual burial places. So right from the very start, even though Mallory was on the right
track by identifying Arthur's father as Uther Pendragon, he was unable to name the King or give that King a real name.
It is highly probable that Mallory knew Arthur's father's name was the famous King Meurig and masked the name by
using the Uther Pendragon title? For Meurig and his father Tewdrig were famous identifiable British King's who like
Arthur had fought many battles with the invading Saxons and others.
These early English historians failed to understand Welsh history, Uther Pendragon did kill Guinner of Cornwall, who
the English called Gorlois in a battle fought at Castle Damilock. Uther Pendragon may have taken the wife of Guinner
prisoner from the Tintagel Monastery.
What is known is that Arthur's mother was Queen Onbrawst and not Yrgain in Geoffrey of Monmouth's writings.
There were three King Arthur's, all living in different time zones, as a result, we have one living in the fourth century,
one in the sixth and another in a later period of time. Separating them and putting them into their own chronological
order was a demanding and difficult task. Much the same as it would have been for the separation and identification of
the three Uther Pendragons.
Mallory, would have had to access to documents available at the time to get Arthur's fathers name. Strangely enough it
was from this same book written by Mallory that early historians and Lord Tennyson located Tintagel as Arthur's
One of the manuscripts used by Mallory would have been Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain
written about 1135 A.D. Remember too that when Mallory wrote this, he was imprisoned and under threat of losing
his life or a lifetime behind bars.
Journalist's even today use what is well known as journalistic license. This means they can make assumptions and put
words into the mouths of others. Mallory named many of Arthur's knights, but not with the names they were really
Fictitious characters such as Lancelot whose name first appeared with the writings of Cretian de Trios a French poet,
have an element of truth behind them. One must question Mallory for doing this, unless what he was attempting to
separate Arthur and his knights from their territories and place them into some obscure kingdom of his imagination.
Interest in the Arthurian legend at the time was widespread; many folk tales about the legendary king were highly
popular amongst royalty as well as the ordinary folk just as it is today. Mallory also got it wrong when he stated that
Arthur Killed Mordred and Mordred Killed Arthur at the battle of Camlan. One version states,"Battle of Camlan
Arthur and Mordred died and there was a plague in Britain and Ireland". This cryptic entry is easy to understand, it
was between Arthur who's armies killed Mordred.
It was John Leyland, an antiquarian writing an itinery of England and that in trying to locate Camelot realized there
was a River Cam and a town named Camelford. Leyland decided that this was the area in which Arthur's Camelot
However, instead of being as suggested in Cerniw, Camelford is in Somerset where the cider apples grow. Nearby is
Cadbury Hill, a Dark Age fortress where an archaeological dig took place in 1966, the same year that Richard Harris
was Filming and starring in the film "Camelot".
Archaeologist's confirmed that Cadbury Hill was in fact occupied during the period that Arthur lived. But no
connection with Arthur was ever established apart from the fact loads of pottery shards linked to the Dark age period
had been recovered from the area. Leyland's own description of Cadbury Hill written in his Tudor English is as
At the very south ende of the chirch of South-Cadbyri standith Camallate, sumtyme a famose toun or castelle, upon a
very torre or hill, wunderfully enstrengtheid of nature, to the which be 2. enteringes up by very stepe way: one by
north est and another by south west. The very roote of the hille wheron this forteres stode is more then a mile in
cumpace. In the upper parte of the coppe of the hille be 4. diches or trenches, and a balky waulle or yerth betwixt
every one of them. In the very toppe of the hille above al the trenchis is magna area or campus of 20. acres or more by
estimation,.wher yn dyverse places men may se fundations and rudera of walles. There was much dusky blew stone
that people of the villages therby hath caryid away. This top withyn the upper waulle is xx. acres of ground and more,
and hath bene often plowid and borne very good corne. Much gold, sylver and coper of the Romaine coynes hath be
found ther yn plouing : and lykewise in the feldes in the rootes of this hille, with many other antique thinges, and
especial by este. Ther was found in hominum memoria a horse shoe of sylver at Camallate. The people can telle
nothing ther but that they have hard say that Arture much restorid to Camalat.
This was written when John Leyland was antiquarian to Henry VIII's Library. Henry was interested in the Arthurian
legend his report would have pleased the King at the time.
At the base of Cadbury Hill, an amateur archaeologist located the grave of a warrior who had been interred in a boat. It
was realized that the boat was pointing in the direction of Glastonbury Tor 10 miles away. So it was again assumed
that Arthur would be buried at Glastonbury.
What is known about Glastonbury, is the fact that it was founded in 950 A.D. It's a well known documented fact the
Arthur died in 579 A.D. and would have been pushing up the daisies elsewhere. In 1184 funds were needed to restore
the building, which had been extensively damaged in a fire.
Henry II provided some money as a benefactor because he had a son named Arthur and was interested in the
Arthurian legend. Unfortunately the young prince died in some sort of boating accident and Henry died several years
later cutting off funds from the Abbey.
King Richard 1 was more interested in Crusades than Glastonbury so the old church was left to it's own devices. One
of the monks thought of a way to attract pilgrims which in turn would bring the much needed revenue in order to
restore the church to it's former glory. It must be remembered here that Geoffrey of Monmouth's,"History of the
Kings of Britain," written in 1135 A.D. had been in circulation for some time.
Only the wealthy and educated were able to read and write. Some of the monks would have been able to do just that.
During a so called routine excavation, the remains of King Arthur and Queen Gwenivere were uncovered together with
a lead cross, which would corroborate and prove the identity of the dead King and Queen.
Using the reference that after the Battle of Camlan Arthur was taken to Avalon to heal his wounds, the greedy monks
seized the opportunity to cash in on the Arthurian legend.
So Glastonbury Abbey suddenly had a draw card to attract visitors and tourists to the area, the famous King Arthur.
The supposed cross that was said to have been found with Arthur mysteriously disappeared.
This in itself is very strange for this would have been a very important historical treasure and should have been
guarded at all times. It would also confirm the truth behind the tale, without that cross; the whole burial site is a scam.
However replicas and drawings were made of it by the historian William Camden before the cross did it's mysterious
disappearing act. Those that have studied this matter agree that the cross is a forgery even the lettering is nothing like
what was normal for Arthurian times. Copies of this forgery are still being sold to gullible tourists too eager to part
with hard earned cash believing they were actually getting something authentic of the Arthurian legend.
William of Malmesbury did a detailed search into the history of Glastonbury Abbey. He had a vast number of
documents available to him at the time. His account starts at 643 A.D. over one hundred years after Arthur's death
and at no stage is Arthur mentioned with any connection to Glastonbury. On top of the false claims that Arthur was
buried at Glastonbury, they monks also falsely claimed that St. Patrick of Ireland, together with St. Gilda's were also
buried there. William of Malmesbury was noted as being one of the most important historians of his day.
Even Adrian Gilbert in his book, The Holy Kingdom" came across something interesting about Glastonbury.
Edward the first used the pretext that as Arthur was king of all England and Wales he used this as an excuse to claim
those independent territories as part of England. A deal had been struck with Llewellyn Fawr a Welsh king who was
interested in Simon de Montfort's daughter Eleanor.
Eleanor was eventually sent to Llewellyn by ship and was intercepted en-route by three of the Kings ships in the
Seven Estuary. A message from the king stated Eleanor would only be released if Llewellyn met him at Glastonbury.
Edward had the bones of Arthur exhumed and laid out for his guests benefit. It said that Llewellyn burst out laughing
when he saw what was laid out before his eyes. The bones were not those of a Giant but those of an ox. The marriage
of Llewellyn and Eleanor took place at Westminster Abbey in 1278.
Adrian Gilbert himself did his own research into Glastonbury Abbey his findings are quite startling and confirm that
what I have always considered myself that it was in fact founded by the Anglo Saxons. He also discovered the legend
of Joseph of Arimathea was started by a local innkeeper around 1607 A.D. The entire surrounding area consisted of marshland until the middle ages when it was eventually drained. During the summer months the area would be plagued with mosquitoes making it a very unpleasant place in which to live.
When Henry the eighth ruled, he destroyed many churches and Abbey's when he fell out of favour with the pope after
the pope's refusal to grant him a divorce.
So Henry formed his own church and destroyed all catholic churches in the Kingdom. Glastonbury was one of those
unfortunate Abbey's that suffered under the rule of Henry. Yet another contradiction, you see the early Britons were
in fact Celts who had their own religion as Gnostic Christians.
The question one has to ask here is why a Gnostic Christian would want to be buried in a Catholic church? It must be
remembered that like today the two religions have always been at odds with one another, just as they are today in
some parts of the world.
The Saxons followed the catholic faith whereas the British were Christians and always had been long before the
Romans settled. Many of the early Saxon's had no religion and were considered barbarians until they became
Christians to the roman catholic faith.
Maybe the next claim will be that a Benedictine monastery was established on the site in the 7th century.
Arthur lived in the 6th century not the 7th, again Arthur would be at rest turning in his grave at these stupid
suggestions. Apart from the fact that Glastonbury was situated in Territory ruled by the Anglo Saxons at the time.
Strange isn't it that the Welsh documentary evidence states that King Arthur's Kingdom was situated in Wales, which
even Geoffrey Of Monmouth wrote about.
Why would Arthur or any of his survivors want his body to be buried not only in enemy territory but also in a church
that was not of their religion.
I too was one of those poor gullible suckers who visited Glastonbury, believing it to be Avalon and gladly paid the
five English pounds entrance fee to see for myself the grave of the dead King. Tourism, is big business in the U.K.,
English Heritage who run Glastonbury stand to lose millions of pounds in revenue earned from gullible tourists with
their IMPOSTOR'S GRAVE.
After Henry the eighth destroyed Glastonbury it fell into private hands until it was sold to the diocese of Bath and
Wells in 1907. A Frederick Bligh Bond carried out extensive digs between 1908 and 1919. His findings were
published in a report called, "An Archaeological Handbook of Glastonbury Abbey and published the truth about his
findings in 1918.
This caused such a scandal that he was forced to quit his prestigious position and died several years later. The vast
majority of the Abbey ruins dated from the 12th century. No evidence had been found of any earlier churches.
Although bond looked for such evidence of earlier structures none were found.
The noted historian Geoffrey Ash, who has written several books on the legend, lives in Glastonbury he has a vested
interest in keeping the Arthurian legend and burial site there. Many of the books he has written about Arthurian
legend are available for sale in the local souvenir shop.
There must be more documentary evidence available about the huge scam that is even being conducted by English
Heritage and those that run Glastonbury Abbey solely as a money grabbing attraction that thrives on lies,
misinformation's embezzling the public of it money . One must question why despite all this evidence which must be
common knowledge to many Oxford Cambridge academics why is this deceit allowed to continue?
Apart from the fact that Glastonbury like Tintagel relies heavily on tourism. Mr. Ash in his endeavours to identify
various characters from the legend claims that Merlin was really a person named Lilocum.
He's also having doubts about his previous writing's naming a Rhiothamus (Rhiotavwys) a possible candidate for the
real King Arthur according to Richard Harris in the documentary. However, the dates are wrong Rhiothamus was
recorded as being in France 60-70 years before the Battle of Badon, in which the real Arthur took part.
Rhiothamus, may have lived and fought battles at Cadbury Hill as Mr. Ash suggests, however it would have been
many years before the Battle of Badon. Despite all the historical documentation that exists, one is entitled to question
Mr. Ash's rational about why he continually refuses to look at the Welsh connections and overwhelming
documentation that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Arthur's Kingdom existed in Wales.
Millions of tax payers money has been spent on archaeological digs or in area's that Arthur may never have even
visited yet alone lived in or be associated with. Surely people such as this must have no conscience when it come to
the waste of public monies and the digs they inspire from misleading and false information's.
Even in the Gododdin, the it states that the Saxons advanced west towards Wales but were never able to gain any
territory in it.
The one question that really needs an answer is why? The simple answer to that question is because it was occupied
by the Silures a Welsh Celtic tribe, who's leader was none other than King Arthur the Paramount King of Britain who
united all the Welsh kings into one vast army and repelled the Saxons and defeated them at every attempt to gain a
foothold. Just as the Romans had built Hadrian's Wall, a massive barrier was built on the border of Wales and England,
its called Uffa's Dyke.
It must be remembered that Wales does not consist of just North and South. It is divided in various states or areas
such as Gwent, Powys, Gwynedd, and so on. Each of these area's was in fact a kingdom with it's own ruling King,
some of whom were related in one-way or another to Arthur. Through birthright or marriage.
If you have ever posted a letter to Wales, you will see the various states still exist today as they did in Arthur's time.
Several Kings ruled in the Southern territories of the British, Vortiporex ruled Dyfed in West Wales; Maelgwyn ruled
North Wales in Gwynedd; Constantine ruled the South West of Devon and Cornwall; Cunogassus ruled North East
Wales and Clwyd and so on.
Lancelot, was in fact Maelgwyn Gwynedd, who was the King of Gwynedd but rather than ruling his own Kingdom,
he chose to fight alongside Arthur in his battles. Gilda's wrote much about Maelgwyn, in fact more was written about
him than Arthur and Gilda's classed him as a tyrant, together with other kings of the same period. Gilda's names five
kings, Constantinus, Aurelius, Vortipor, Cuneglasus and Maglocunnus (Maelgwyn). The interesting thing here is that
the Maglocunnus memorial stone has been found and located in Wales.
For some unexplained reason Gilda's describes these kings a little more than a band of rouges and bandits rounding up
thieves and whilst attacking them by calling them murderers, adulterers and swearing false oaths. They wage wars,
civil and unjust, they often plunder and terrorize the innocent. Gilda's and his critique of these kings is a lengthy
sermon exposing the sins and corruption of five ruling dynasties in which even family members are not spared.
I don't think anyone has bothered to question or wonder why Gilda's would want to do such a thing. Arthur
beheaded Gilda's brother, that's well known, it could be that Arthur and Gilda's fell out over something or another.
What might have been considered as fair game criticizing Arthur's companions, anything written about Arthur himself
would have been considered as defamatory and an act of treason. Gilda's therefore failed to name Arthur fearing the
King or members of his family would take their revenge out on him as they did with his brother Huail.
Whatever, the issue was that caused Arthur and Gilda's to fall out is unsure, however it did have an influence on what
Gilda's wrote about him. It must be remembered too that Gilda's was a monk and a good Christian. As such he would
expect all Kings to abide by the strict rules of Christianity. Never does he accuse them of being pagans or barbarians.
Arthur is documented in the Llandaff Charters, his family tree, his ancestors and their names can be identified. Arthur
and his family were all strict Christians and donated land to the church and in some cases built churches thus ensuring
that they themselves would secure a safe resting place in heaven. Many of the old kings are to be found at the right
hand of god close to the alter in the churches that they built and donated to the church.
It may also be that at the battle of Camlan Arthur was fighting against many of those who had in the past been loyal
to him such as Maelgwyn Gwynned. Or it could mean that these Kings failed to support Arthur in this decisive
battle. This would account for the outburst by Gilda's against those who had failed to support him or those that had
fought against Arthur.
Why is it that the Oxford Cambridge academics cannot accept these facts? Maybe its because of professional
jealousy, they were outdone by Baram Blacket and Alan Wilson who researched the subject over a 30 year period and
located the burial places of Arthur's Father who is buried at Llandaff Cathedral and Grand-father, Tewdrig, buried at
Mathern, together with his wives and many of his knights and other kings.
Now, this is interesting because the burial place of the real King Arthur's father is known. Today we have one of the
greatest forensic tests that is highly accurate, DNA. King Meurig died around 570 A.D. he was buried in a Kings
rightful place in the founders position which was always the north wall close to the alter at Llandaff Cathedral.
It would be a very easy task to excavate King Meurigs tomb in order to get DNA samples and make comparison tests
against the bones of the impostor's grave at Glastonbury?
Except, they finally admit that during the reformation, when Henry's army destroyed Glastonbury Abbey the actual
burial site and bones were lost too. Things don't look good for Glastonbury a religious site one associates with the
truth and the gospels. Now, associating itself with untruths and misrepresentations to attract gullible honest people to
their doors in order to obtain money.
Almost from day one Glastonbury has survived of lies, forgery, falsehoods, misinformation's, and misrepresentations.
It is without doubt fraud on a massive unprecedented scale that continues unabated. Strange then that individuals or
Companies that commit such crimes of embezzlement, deceit and obtaining good by false pretenses are bought to
justice whilst a blind eye is turned to Glastonbury's activities.
Surely, this is a criminal offence under to-days stringent laws, yet English Heritage continue to do it with immunity.
Many of the actual battle sites in which Arthur fought have been located, together with the burial mounds of the fallen
soldiers. The famous battle site of Camlan has been identified and it is still marked on ordinance Survey maps.
More important is the location of Baden Hill, which the old monks referred to and the Oxford Cambridge academics
continue to search for at various sites in England at great expense to the public purse. There were in fact 2 sites that
have been connected to Baden hill. One in Scotland where Arthur did in fact fight many of his battles but also another
which is located in Wales and has been listed on maps for ages.
A great waste of public monies have been spent and is continually being spent in an idiotic attempt to disprove Alan
Wilson's findings about the Battle of Camlan, which for some strange reason appears on a 1974 Ordinance Survey
Map, sheet 124 of the 1-50,000 series.
During Alan Wilson's search in an attempt to find the real truth about the real King Arthur, he found Arthur's
memorial stone carved out of solid granite in the shape of a sword and bearing the inscription REX ARTORIUS FILI
MAVRICIUS. Unlike the slab of slate supposedly found at Tintagel, this stone bears all the hallmarks of being
original and not manufactured in any shape or form by modern hands or technology.
This is the stone described by Taliesin ap henwg (Merlyn) as the Mawrnad Uther pendragon, circa 579, and by
Nennius in his History of Britain of 822 and in the "Life of St. ILltyd" copied from older manuscripts in 1104.
Notice that Uther Pendragon is mentioned, simply because as stated previously it is a title afforded to the Victorious
leader of many battles. It is a title held by King Meurig, Arthur's father and his grandfather King Tewdrig as well as
One would think that the finding of Arthur's memorial stone would be sufficient evidence to prove the existence of
Arthur? Not so, Arthur is the only British King that had a secret burial. when Arthur finally died, long after the battle
of Camlan. This was the battle in which Mallory writes that Arthur and Mordred killed one another. The Annals date
this event in either 537 or 542 A.D. the cryptic writing Arthur and Mordred died. This could be taken out of context
that the battle was between Arthur and Mordred died meaning they both died, else it could mean Arthur fought
Mordred and Mordred died.
A great deal is known about the Battle of Camlan from the triads and from the Lives of the Saints, and nowhere do
they state that Arthur was killed.
Triad No.81 of series 3 tells of Three incontinent troops of soldiers. In other words, these individuals had no control
over their bowels and left the scene of the battle. This was a Civil war in which many did not wish to participate and
it seriously depleted Arthur's forces but only temporary.
Following a Battle the victor would usually go the land of his enemies and pacify them, it always happened.
So Arthur went to Affalach, which is Valentia between Hadrian's Wall and the Clyde and the Forth Estuaries. This
shows he was alive and well. Only the hopeless confusion by early historians of Aballach being Avalon or
Glastonbury did the idea of his dying arise.
While Arthur was in France fighting his wars, Mordred seduced and won the heart of Gwenivere and proclaimed
himself King. Hearing of this treachery, Arthur returned to Britain and the battle of Camlan took place after having to
fight his way ashore at Penbryn-Llongborth at Cardigan. Early historians confused Llongborth with Portsmouth which
is miles away from Camlan.
There were three-queen Gwenivere's in Arthur's life. He had three sons by the first, which were all killed fighting
Arthur's battles. Arthur with no heir to the throne now married another in order to gain an heir. This was the
Quenevere 2 that betrayed him, and the same one claimed to be buried at Glastonbury.
Knowing her fate was sealed with Arthur's return she fled North seeking sanctuary in a monastery near Perth,
Scotland. Nearby is the local parish of Mieigle; local tradition has it that Arthur's queen fled north only to be overtaken by Arthur's War Dogs who tore her apart.
The interesting thing here was that an 8-foot by 3 foot 3 inch wide stone marked the spot of her burial. The
elaborately carved stone depicts Arthur on horseback, wearing armour at the top with his knights on horseback and
the dogs of war tearing the unfaithful queen to pieces. The Back of the stone has elaborate carvings on it.
This is no ordinary stone, for the elaborate carvings must have taken some time to make and at great expense. Who
other than a King could afford such opulence? It is also one of Britain's historical wonders of the Arthurian legend.
This again brings into question the fake excavation and bogus discoveries in Glastonbury in 1190-1191 A.D.
One must also Question, Why a King of his standing would even want to be buried with a wife that betrayed him?
Her own subjects would have turned against her for her part in the treachery towards their king and there is no way
she would be reunited with Arthur and buried with him after death.
Cconsider the fact that Alan Wilson located one Gwenivere in Perth, another in Gwent and the third in Glamorgan.
Yes there were 3 Guinevere's but he also had three mistresses.
Arthur had 6 women in his life much the same as Henry VIII did except Henry married all his women until he decided
having a fling was cheaper than marriage. With Arthur being buried in his own Kingdom of Glamorgan, there is
something with a very bad smell about Glastonbury.
The Question remains Who is buried in this impostors grave that Glastonbury Abbey places so much importance on.
The Llandaff Charters is still recording Arthur as living and doing his rounds so to speak long after the battle of
Camlan. Mallory got it wrong again. Mallory's book is nothing more than a fiction based on some of the facts. The
characters have been given new names hiding the real identity of the individuals that lived and fought with Arthur. It is
a romantic fiction written much the same, as a novelist would attempt to write about the end of the world.
The interesting question is this, if Arthur's father and mother are located in Wales, together with many other
characters associated with the Arthurian legend how can these mindless academics and historians continue to preach of
Arthur being born at Tintagel many miles from their own Kingdom?
The Birth of any king's son would be an important event; as such it is something to be shared with other members of
the local community. The idea that the King would go somewhere else for his child to be born is ridiculous. It's like
saying the Queen would go to China to give birth to the future King of England.
The legend that Arthur was buried in a cave believe it or not was very true. The actual location of the cave remained a
mystery for centuries, until Alan Wilson and Baram Blacket started to research the story and attempt to locate this mysterious cave.
Only with a meticulous understanding of the, "Songs of the Graves," and the "Life of St. Iltyd" were they able to not
only translate the meanings but also find the exact cave that Arthur had been buried in. When Arthur finally died, his
son was too young to take over his kingdom.
Fearing further Saxon invasions had they learnt of Arthur's death, his death was kept a secret. Members of his family
ensured that Arthur would have a secret burial, which was entrusted to St. Illtyd his first cousin, who lived the life of
a hermit in a cave.
What St. Illtyd had been doing in this cave was to carve out a burial pit in the solid rock where Arthur would finally
be laid to rest. This would not have been an easy task in those days using a picks and chisels to do the job. Especially
when one considers the pit was 10 foot by 3.5 foot and four foot deep.
In order to find the cave they had to follow a river for miles looking for likely landmarks written down centuries ago.
It's reminiscent of Heinrich Schliemann finding Troy after following the writings of Homer.
Much to their surprise, they finally located the mysterious cave of pavilions in the Forest of Mystery. Instead of
finding the remains of the dead king they only located the empty grave carved out of the solid rock.
They concluded, that when his son Morgan became King in his own right Morgan would have given his father a burial
fitting for a King. Thus Arthur's body was exhumed, moved once more and reburied elsewhere, under a cloak of
This secrecy was vital, for it gave Morgan, Arthur's son time to prepare to take over the Kingdom. It also gained
precious time, keeping the Anglo Saxons at bay for fear of confronting Arthur who they thought was still living. It is
very strange indeed that many historians who use Gryffyd ap Arthur's, "History of the Kings of Britain" or Geoffrey
of Monmouth as he is better known and written in 1135 A.D. nearly 600 years after the event fail to understand the
meanings and locations he describes.
However Alan Wilson using the same reference was able to identify numerous places described by Gryffed ap Arthur.
With overwhelming evidence that the real King Arthur lived, fought and died in Glamorgan and Gwent, why is it that
the Oxford and Cambridge academics continue with a lie and falsehoods about the man?
Is it not time to finally own up and admit mistakes have been made? The general public pay taxes, which in turn is
used to pay the salaries of these academics. Are they not entitled to know the truth that these same academics are
continuing to deceive the public with Tintagel, Cadbury Hill and Glastonbury.
If the truth were really known, the history books would have to be re-written. Simply because of the
misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misrepresentations of early historians who started the lie refused to correct
their mistakes and allowed it to grow out of all proportion.
This task in itself would be a very time consuming and costly venture. There are other political issues involved that
might even question the legality of the present throne. It's high time and long overdue, that historian's and
archaeologists recognize once and for all the findings of Alan Wilson and Baram Blacket.
Only when archaeological digs take place at Arthur's courts, battle sites and hillside fortresses will a true
understanding of the Arthurian period be known and understood. Proof that Arthur's Kingdom already exists
following an archaeological dig at Dinas Powys in which the largest collection of pottery and bones were uncovered.
Far greater than those recovered from the Cadbury Dig. One can conclude from this that Dinas Powys was a heavily
fortified hillside fortress. One of many that are scattered throughout Wales and as yet unexcavated.
One must bear in mind that just as the Indian and Jewish calendars are different, so were the British and English
calendars. As such much dispute takes place over actual dates. A total explanation of these differences is given in full
by the authors of the book listed below.
If you really want to know the whole truth about King Arthur, his family tree, Camelot, his famous battles and his
loyal knights, do yourself a favour, write to King Arthur Research, 3,Ty-Draw Place, Penylan, Cardiff and get
yourself a copy of Artorious Rex Discovered. For further reading try to locate another book entitled the, "Holy
Kingdom" While you're at it try to obtain a copy of the Arthur and the Charters of the Kings, which gives accounts
from the Llandaff Charters.
There's an old saying, "you cant see the forest for the trees". Until such time as proved otherwise the overwhelming
evidence and documentation proves beyond all reasonable doubt that King Arthur and his Kingdom existed in Wales.
Over the centuries historians have attempted unsuccessfully to shift Arthur's Kingdom to Tintagel, Cadbury Hill and
Glastonbury which wasnt even built until centuries after was buried in his own kingdom.
The biggest problem are the distortions of Geoffrey of Monmouth and fictions of Thomas Mallory who's writing's
rather than embellishing Arthur's legend and history cast a shadow of myth over the truth.
Heinrich Schleiman read homer, he understood the writings which led him to the discovery of Troy, why is it with all
the known documentation available regarding Arthur's authenticity cannot he not be recognized?
However, you may think otherwise, you may not agree with the findings of Alan Wilson and Baram Blacket and
myself. We all have our own opinions, you don't have to agree with them you can always stick your head in the sand
and ignore the issue. One thing is sure, eventually the truth will prevail as it always has done in the past.
copyright ? alan hassell 12/4/2002
The name Uthyr Pendragon is really a title which means victorious top leader or rulerLinkback:
You are not allowed to view links.
Please Register or Login