During the reign of Uther Pendragon in the
wake of the dragon shaped star
Merlin foretold the coming of Arthur a great warrior king who will defend his country and faith from foreign invaders and natural disasters.
From the old Roman order that had withered and died Arthur would sow the seeds of a nation that was to become Great Britain.
Today Arthur’s name lives on but did he ever really exist?
Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett have gone further than any other researchers in establishing the facts behind the legend.
Since 1977 they have been revaluating the most ancient British texts.
Some of their astonishing findings have been published but it is only now that the full story can be told.
Not only have they identified two Arthurs they have also
found physical evidence to support their claims.
Their research shows a long crafted conspiracy
to rewrite our history and deny our true heritage.
The book that really brought Arthur to the
attention of the world was ‘The History of the kings of Britain’ written in 1135 by Geoffrey of Monmouth. 
Arthur’s name had been recorded before but it was this work that betrayed him as a knightly king chivalrous in all his deeds.
The problem immediately
was that he proclaimed an Arthur who fought
the Romans and an Arthur who fought and defeated the Saxons.
The immediate problem is that you have a 250 year old king.
This was pointed out by Polydore Vergil the historian for Henry VIII of the six wives
and he said look this is impossible you’ve got a 250 year old king here he can’t fight the Romans and the Saxons.
In the usual negative stance which is taken towards Welsh history and towards most ancient British history
this is immediately used to say that the history is false. But the most obvious answer is that there are two King
Arthurs and there are two. And the man who fought the Romans did so in 383-388 AD
and is very clearly recorded and is very well
recorded, authenticated and the man who fought
the Saxons in the 6th century is a sixth generation direct descendant in the male line and he is Arthur II.
So you do have two kings 200 years apart both of them warrior kings one fights the Romans and one fights the Saxons.
With a great conqueror and defender
rolled into one mighty king their fame lived
on within the Arthur legend. Today a mystery surrounds the real Arthurs but that was not always the case. 
In the Bruts of England written
between the 10th and 15th century Arthur is clearly recorded.
The Bruts of England actually
commence with the invasion of Albyne from
Syria which is actually dateable to about
1600 BC and they roll on through the centuries
and as they come on they become more and more
detailed. Now King Arthur is given quite a
significant place in these histories, he gets
quite a lot of space and the coverage is again
melding together or welding together King
Arthur I and King Arthur II.
Now if we look at King Arthur II we find there is a very
interesting reference to him in the Bruts
of England. Now you got to remember up until
modern times this would have been genuinely
firmly believed as authentic history. So in
chapter 79 it’s telling how King Arthur
is over in France, Brittany area, and it’s
on about the Easter time and it says
 “And when Arthur hade þus his knyȝtes feffede,
at April after nexte sewyng (sewyng being Spring time)
he come aȝeyne into Britaigne, his owen lande. And after, atte Whitsontide next sewyng,
by conseil of his barons, he wolde bene cronede Kyng of Glomergon.”
So everybody in Britain, certainly in England and Wales, would have been in no doubt whatsoever from the Bruts of England
that King Arthur II at least was a king of
Glamorgan and Gwent, certainly king of Glamorgan.
There’s no doubt about this it’s a very
clear statement.
Another historian called Percy Enderbie writing for Charles II made no secret of there being a real King Arthur.
His history really commences with the Brutus
story of the great Brutus migration moving
into Britain. This is routinely dismissed
as in the Albyne invasion although there is
a great deal of physical evidence extant today to prove that both are true. 
So what is happening is that you have a history which was recognisable to everybody as British history certainly
up until 1700 and then suddenly things begin to change and move.
In 1850 they were writing histories of Britain that bear no resemblance whatsoever in the early stages, no resemblance
whatsoever to the previous histories of Britain.
Out go Albyne, out go Brutus, out go this,
out go that, out goes everything and you have
a brand new history. It’s like George Orwell
1714 and not 1984. It’s an Orwellian maneuverer
and they are restyling, rewriting, reinventing
a history for political and religious correctness
and that what’s happened. They’ve rewritten
the histories and what they didn’t what
they simply derided, abused and abandoned.
With the threat of revolution sweeping Europe
and the Americas and with German George on
the throne the historians were directed to
play down any nationalistic feelings and emphasise our Anglo-Saxon past.
The Arthur legend had to go.
History is the most important of all political weapons have no doubt about it.
It may not be instant like a war or the dropping
of a bomb but it is the most potent of all
political weapons
and so they decided they would introduce a history that was suitable to the church, which was suitable to the state
and so suddenly Bishop Stubbs was appointed
professor of history at Oxford University,
a convinced fundamental Christian, Noah’s
Ark, Sons of Noah populate the entire world,
his grandsons, everybody is descended from Noah.
In Cambridge a man named Edwin Guest a fanatical fundamental Christian same as Stubbs was appointed professor of history.
They didn’t even apply for the job. And
so you have these two fanatics busy reconstructing
and rewriting British history in a suitable
Biblical manner to suit the church and to
suit the support of the Royal Family and so
everything that didn’t suit that political
necessity that was no politically correct
had to go. King Arthur had to go both of them.
Of course they would have got away with this,
I think they would have got away with it,
if it hadn’t been for King Arthur, I mean
both King Arthurs, if it had not been for
the Arthur legend they would have got away
with it. But he stood there too big and too
powerful, too well placed in the people’s
minds, imagination, a linchpin, a cornerstone, they couldn’t get rid of him.
Growing up in South Wales Alan was familiar with the
local stories of Arthur and his Knights. With
the Bruts of England confirming Arthur as
a Glamorgan king it was logical for him and
Baram to return to Wales.
With a nation and history unchanged for 2000 years the memory of Arthur lives on in its songs and poems,
its parchment and stone and in the very landscape itself.
In a Nevern churchyard is the stone of a king called Hywel Dda or Hywel the Good.
Around 920 AD a king list was drawn up for
the wedding of his son Prince Owain. This
document called the Harleian 3859 still survives
today in the British museum. It contains the names of both Arthurs.
383 the armies of the British invaded Gaul and the general of Magnus’s armies was his son Arthur,
and Latins called him Andragathius and he defeated Gratian the emperor of Rome.
He defeated Gratian in battle at Soissons which they called the Battle of Sassy in Geoffrey of Monmouth, chased him down to
Lyons (Lugdunum) invited him to a meal and executed him.
With an Arthur remembered for fighting the Romans was there evidence of a later Arthur?
Incredibly in king list 28 there is mention of a Glamorgan king called Arthwys or Arthmael a sixth generation descendent
of Arthur I. You’ve got a line of princes
you’ve got a son of Arthur I Tathal then
Teithrin, Teithfallt or Theodosius, King Tewdrig
(Theoderic), Meurig (Maurice) and then Meurig’s
son Arthur II and so you’ve got two Arthurs
very clearly, you see these are not hidden,
you'll find him very clearly in the manuscript evidence that everybody else uses when they’re writing about British history.
So they're harder to miss then they are to find.
Further research confirmed their findings.
There is a group of manuscripts known as the Brecon Manuscripts, again these are always quoted by diligent people looking for Arthur
and in the Brecon Manuscripts I think it’s the Harleian 4181 and again I think it’s the British Museum
Vespasian 814 again you’ve got lists of
the parentage and ancestry of Brychan of Brycheiniog.
His mother was Marchel who is the sister of King Meurig which makes Arthur and Brychan
to be first cousins. And then it goes back
King Tewdrig, King Teithfallt (Theodosius) all
the way back to Arthur I and Magnus Maximus.
Their search now took them to Cardiff and to the site of one of the oldest cathedrals
in the country.
With a mixture of the old and new its windows clearly demonstrate its links with King Arthur of Glamorgan.
It’s ancient charters republished by Alan and Baram in their book ‘Arthur and the Charters of the Kings’
established without doubt the dynasty of the Glamorgan kings but what did these charters tell them?
They list the kings and they list the king’s family his brothers, his sons, his daughters, cousins and nephews and so on
because these people are the nobility and they attend important land granting ceremonies with the church.
On the church side you get the bishop, usually the three local abbots and their senior clergy
but what is happening as the charters go on down the centuries a king dies and the bishop serves the next king
or the bishop dies and another comes in and they
overlap each other and so you can get a clear
picture of who was who by linking them together in this overlapping fashion down the centuries
and you also see the sons coming in as witnesses and later becoming kings themselves and so on witnessing these charters.
So it is a pretty extensive who was who for the entire period of around 400-1100 AD.
Many of the land grants date
from the 6th century at a time when a King
Meurig was rebuilding the cathedral. One of
the grants concern land at a place called Llangenny.
“Be it know to us that Meurig
son of Tewdrig King of Glamorgan and his wife
Onbrawst daughter of Gwrgan the Great have given to God and Oudoceus the Bishop 54 acres at Llangenny."
Among the witnesses
are his sons Athrwys and Idnerth. 
That Athrwys followed his father Meurig as king is evidenced by another grant.
“Be it known to the clergy and people of southern Britain that Athrwys king of the region of Gwent,
granted to God and to St. Dubricus and St.
Teilo, and in the hand of Bishop Comereg, the Church of Cynfarch."
From this one charter alone and there are others, it’s patently obvious that Arthur succeeded King Meurig
as king. 
From these and other charters Arthur’s family tree can be established. 
King Tewdrig, Arthur’s grandfather married Govein.
They’re followed by his son Meurig and his queen Onbrawst, amongst their children is Athrwys and his brothers and sister Anna.
These charters and the lists of kings which can be extracted can
then be compared with the Lives of the Saints;
all the saints were royal and noble people,
you couldn’t be a saint unless you were
royal and obviously saints had mothers and
fathers and brothers and sisters and so on
and saints also married they didn’t believe
in celibacy like the Roman Church and so you
have the Lives of the Saints give you further
linked genealogies which link in with the
Llandaff Charters.
One such saint is Teilo who was a son of Marchel and a cousin of Arthur.
His tomb is in Llandaff as is St. Dubricus the bishop who crowned Arthur.
Though many have tried to
dismiss these charters these tombs are just
one small piece of the jigsaw that demonstrate
that these people were real.
What we are confronted with is a vast, accurate, precise, detailed
history provable in almost every way, totally
authentic and it’s cast aside because of
a totally unfounded almost lunatic set of
allegations which have gone unchallenged and
it’s got to the incredible stage where people
say it’s all forged, it’s all forged.
They don’t know one single thing or one
fact or one iota of how or why or in what
way it’s forged, they’ve no proof, no
evidence and there is no evidence and yet
they all accept this false allegation.
From these genealogies it’s possible to place
Arthur into the 6th century.
One prominent means of dating is Arthur had a sister named Anna and Anna had a son named Saint Samson.
Samson of Dol as he was known, actually moved
over to Brittany, he attended and signed the
papers of the Second Council of Paris in 556
AD. So if Samson is signing the papers as
a fairly young cleric actually in 556, King
Arthur is his uncle, his mother’s brother,
it’s got to be of the same era. They knew
from the charters the story of King Tewdrig
who after a vision from an angel had died
defending his country.
But was there any evidence he really existed?
We're here in the Wye Valley
at Tintern and the reason we're here is that there
was a ford in the River Wye here and we believe
this is roughly the spot of the ford and a
battle was fought here 1500 odd years ago
in the year 508 AD.
The senior king King Theoderic or Tewdrig had retired, it was a common custom
to retire and prepare yourself for heaven.
His son Meurig (Maurice) has taken over the
rule. The Saxons made a raid into Wales,
Having made the raid, you have to get away with the
booty. Theoderic was living here at Tintern/Tyndyrn 
which means din + d/teyrn the “Stones
of the Monarch” and he gathered what men he could,
a small army and he barricaded the
ford to prevent the Saxons getting out while
his son Maurice was coming up with the army
to catch them before could get out and so
there was quite a fight here at the ford
and somebody struck Tewdrig (Theoderic) on the head.
After the battle they put Theoderic onto a cart drawn by two deer and they were
taking him down river and he wanted to be
buried on the Island of Echni which is the Flat Holm in Cardiff Bay.
After three days
travelling they reached a meadow near the
River Severn where a spring flowed, today
it is called Mathern meaning the martyred
Monarch. It was here according to several
historical accounts he died. A plaque still
marks the spring and nearby a church named
after him contains his grave.
In 1618 they carried out an excavation of the grave and
they found a stone sarcophagus and that’s
not made for ordinary people and in it a skeleton
and the skeleton displayed a very large serious
head wound to the skull. This matches with
the story of Tewdrig being smashed on the
head and taking three days to die. In 1881
they again excavated the grave of Tewdrig
and again opened the coffin and later generation
were able to see the skeleton again with the
wound in the skull. So the person of the king
is quite apparently there, is apparent to
any reasonable man, in his stone coffin at
Mathern. Tewdrig has a wife St. Govein and
St. Govein’s Chapel is a little chapel down
on a little dingle and you go down on a cliff
path and it’s right overlooking the sea.
Now they excavated that 15 years ago and under
the alter they found a small female skeleton.
Now its St. Govein’s Chapel named for Govein
the wife of King Tewdrig and there is a small
female skeleton and in the press it said the
researchers did not dare to think it might
be St. Govein. Why on earth not?
If they dig up someone in Egypt they don’t say we don’t
dare to think this is an ancient Egyptian.
So where this sort of thing has been possible
and there are other instances they turn out to be true or factual.
 These genealogies and
stories were common knowledge to the people
of South Wales. Hundreds of books published
between 1750 and 1900 confirmed Arthur as a
king of Glamorgan. Up until 1924 these facts
were taught in the classrooms of Wales.
But what other evidence was there? Alan and Baram
have noted that according to the histories
almost all the Welsh kings and nobility had
memorial stones. As their research progressed
they discovered many of them still in the
Welsh landscape.
We’ve got about 200 ancient inscribed stones in Wales and again kings are named
and often giving land grants to noble relatives
who were in the church. An inscribed stones
is a contemporary document and to say there
are no contemporary documents in ancient Britain
is false. Because we’d know next to nothing
about ancient Assyria and Egypt and elsewhere
if we didn’t have writings on stone and
clay tablets so not to take stone into consideration is ludicrous.
Legend has it that Joseph of Arimathea himself founded the church at Llantwit
Major and so it’s not surprising that at
such an important and holy site royal stones have been found.
Now in this church is a stone of King Ithael, Ithael was a brother of Morgan
and jointly Morgan and Ithael succeeded Arthur II.
The stone of Ithael also names Illtyd
a first cousin of Arthur and it also names
on the bottom Arthmael. Arthmael ”Iron Bear”
is the normal calling of Arthur II. There
are two other stone here one is of Samson.
Saint Samson the son of Anna, Anna was the
daughter of King Meurig, therefore Samon is
a nephew of King Arthur because Anna and Arthur
are brother and sister. Another stone names
King Howell and King Rhys and that is probably
of the 7th century around 750. Again descendants
of Morgan and Ithael so you’ve got descendants
of Arthur here and you’ve got Arthur on
a stone and that’s quite significant.
But the stone at Llantwit Major were not the only
evidence of Arthur and his family in South
Wales. Amongst the ruins of Ogmore Castle
on the Ewenny River they made another remarkable
discovery. We’ve come here because a stone
was found in this castle. It’s an ancient
6th century stone and there are four names
upon it. It says how King Arthmael ”Iron
Bear” who’s Arthur II is granting land
to three people for religious purposes presumably.
One is Nertat, Nertat is a daughter of Brychan
of Brycheiniog who’s Arthur’s first cousin.
Another is Fili the Bishop who is a Bishop
of Llandaff and another one is Glywys who
is either Glywys Cernyw a father of King Gwynllyw
and Arthur arranged Gwynllyw’s marriage
to the daughter of Brychan or alternatively
he’s Glywys the brother of St. Cadoc and
a son of Gwynllyw. Either way all the characters
on the stone are all genuine historical 6th century characters, they all fit.
Other relatives
such as his brother Paul and his uncle a brother
of King Tewdrig also have stones. Here at the
Margam Museum is the Bodvoc stone probably
named after King Budic an ally of Arthur’s
grandfather. Again we have a real historical
figure named on a stone. There are many other
stones that provide a link between the histories
and the kings of Glamorgan but the sad fact
it they are largely ignored or have been deliberately destroyed.
A major problem is the actual dating
of the ancient Welsh memorial stones of the kings and the princes.
The problem arises
from an unlikely source. A man who was not
a historian and not an archaeologist, his
name was R.G. Collingwood from the north of
England and he came up with a theory that
the carving of ancient stone crosses and stones
began in England and it began in the north
of England and then this art and science of
carving stones spread from the north of England
and was taken to Ireland and they taught the
Irish how to do it and the Irish in turn came
over to the ignorant peasant Welsh and taught
them how to carve stones. Well the summation
of this is that all Irish stones which are
carved would be after 650 or probably after
700 AD and all Welsh carved ancient stones
would be later again and assisted by the Irish.
This is the problem.
So the stone of King Teithfallt is redated and renamed and the
stone of King Tewdrig (Theoderic) is redated
and renamed and where there is a mixture of
ancient Coelbren alphabet and Welsh Colebren
alphabet and Latin letters they say no that’s
not Welsh Coelbren that is an ancient Irish
letter – from an Irish alphabet that was
only invented about 1700. You’ve got this
horrible mixture. They’re now redating the
stones; well if you redate the stones you’re
moving them away from their true period. So
you’ve got a stone say dated 900 naming
people and nobody of that name can be traced
in that era and so a huge mess has been created
because Mr Collingwood had no clue whatsoever
of the ancient history of Britain and no clue
of ancient British Welsh history or Irish
history be he had a lovely little theory that
suited the establishment mind. It suited the
establishment brand new fabricated Orwellian history.
All these kings left stones but you
get rid of them by redating them by 500 or 600 years.
One thing that could not be destroyed
was the remains of a huge land reclamation
scheme mentioned in the Life of St. Genovesius.
Working alongside 2400 other monks and under
the supervision of Arthur’s cousin
St. Illtyd they constructed a network of dykes
stretching between Cardiff and Chepstow. 
The reason for the dykes is that all the land behind them is well below sea level so it
was a huge land reclamation exercise and masses
of canals like a checkerboard or chessboard
system cross and criss-cross this landscape draining it.
This remarkable construction is post-Roman
and pre-Norman. The interesting thing is that
the Life of St. Genovesius say that Genovesius
is working on the dykes in the land of Arthur
so the land of Arthur is South-East Wales.
If King Arthur was a Glamorgan king where was his Camelot? 
Though today there may not
be much to see there was once a castle standing
on this site. A wedding was recorded as taking
place here as late as 1453.
It was called the Yellow Fortress or Caer Melyn. 
Could this be Camelot?
It may have got its name from the nearby sulphur springs of Yellow Wells Farm.
There are a number of houses in the area the Grey House, the Brown House, the
Blue House – the ancient manor houses and
Yellow Wells Farm is just below. This place
is a Caer – a castle, Melyn is yellow so
Caer Melyn can easily be seen to have translated
into Norman French as Caer-Mellit or Camelot.
The whole point is it’s also known as Cu
Bwrd, Cu means 'Mutually Together’ and Bwrd
means ‘Table’. So Cu Bwrd means 'Mutually
Together Table’. That’s evocative in the Arthurian sense. 
The other thing is that the
city or town of Cardiff was in the Parliamentary
Hundred of Cu Bwrd. Cu Bwrd was not in the
Parliamentary Hundred of Cardiff it was the
other way around and so until very recent
times this ancient field in Cardiff was the
most important place in this entire area.
There’s no doubt about that and there’s
no doubt it was the ancient residence of Glamorgan kings.
 Another royal court can be found on the Glamorgan coast at Dunraven or Din-Dryfan
as it is called in Welsh.
Protected by the sea on three sides it would have been relatively
easy to defend and therefore the ideal location
for a summer residence. Its ancient banks
and ditches can still be seen today and it
was here according to legend Arthur was born.
The histories also tell us of Bedivere one of Arthur’s generals being buried on its
slopes. Close to the cliff edge is what appears to be a large funeral mound.
In the car park
by the buildings there was a very large sign
on two posts holding it up like that and this
sign actually contained a genealogy of the
Glamorgan kings from King Caradoc from the time
of Christ down to Lestyn ap Gwrgan (Justin
son of Aurelian) in 1091, the Glamorgan kings
and their families all displayed.
When we started publishing and printing and announcing what we were doing in 1982 this was still there.
It was still there for a year or two
afterwards. When we published again in 1986
‘Artorius Rex’ they took the sign down.
Now why did they take this display of the
Glamorgan kings down from a Glamorgan ancient
royal site and remove it completely?
To me it’s very suspicious because it smacks of
conspiracy because that’s what it is conspiracy.
Today at the visitors centre a genealogy chart
does list the kings including Tewdrig and Meurig. 
Strangely Arthur’s name the most
famous of all is omitted and the list skips
a generation to his son Morgan. Yet again
another link in the chain has been broken.
You could buy a map before 1982 and you’d
see Mynwent y Milwyr built by Theodosius (Teithfallt)
commemorating to the dead of the great massacre
around 456 AD.
It’s on the maps. But it’s not on the maps after 1982/1983 they’ve taken it off the maps.
A war had erupted between Saxons implied by Vortigern (King Gwytheyrn)
and the British. The Saxons were defeated
and they asked for a peace conference. Both
sides were to come unarmed to the peace conference
and this would guarantee safety. Unfortunately
the Saxons had other ideas and they brought
concealed weapons with them. Too much beer
was drunk at this seemingly successful peace
conference, they were given a signal by Hengist
the one-eyed Saxon leader, they drew their
short seaxes or Saxon knives and each one
killed the British person sitting next to
him. The result was 363 of the leaders of
the British military and government were killed, murdered.
Another war erupted and the leader
of the leader of the British this time was
Teithfallt (Theodosius) the father of Tewdrig
(Theoderic). He defeated the Saxons, killed
Hengist executed him and then he gathered
the 363 bodies of the British leaders who
were killed in the massacre and he brought
them here to this place which is called Mynwent y Milwyr ‘Grave Monument to the Soldiers’.
It’s a circular monument recorded as such and he buried them in Mynwent y Milwyr. 
As we try to exhibit the history they take it off the maps.
One of Arthur’s most famous
battles is the Battle of Badon.
It was here that he won a decisive victory over the Saxons and relative peace was restored to the country for over half a century.
Scholars have for years argued over its location but by putting Arthur into Wales it become childishly easy
to find. 
When we set out originally on this journey to find the Arthurs
 I remember early discussions
with my colleague and I said “how do we
locate the various places that we have to
locate? This is a matter of ancient geography
and ancient topography” and he said “we’ll
buy some maps”
 and I said “we’ll buy maps?” He said “yeah we’ll buy some maps” and it has been that easy.
If we take an Ordnance Survey map produced by the government
on our behalf when we look at it we find something
very strange, in the Maesteg valley we find
Mynydd Baedan, now that’s very strange because
nobody can find Mynydd Baedan. It’s said
to be close to the banks of the Severn, it is,
here’s the banks of the Severn. The
road to it is ‘Road of the Tumult’
the army gathering grounds are known down here we can prove it.
The name of the battlefield is Maes-Cad-Lawr. Now Maes is field Cad is
battle and Lawr is area – ‘Field of battle area’.
On the top of the hill there is the
rows of ancient trench they would dig if they
got to the battlefield first. They would dig
a trench out, mound the earth up behind it
and they’d stand on top of the mound so
the enemy would have a ditch to get across and get up at them.
There are also
vast grave mounds there, now after any big
battle you’ve got a lot of dead people so
whenever there’s been a battle in ancient
times you’ll find one or two usually two
huge grave mounds for the dead both sides
and smaller grave mounds for the illustrious
people the princes that might have been killed
and they’re there. Everything around the
place is right. Cynwyd Cynwydion one of Arthur’s knights
 – the Church of Cynwyd becomes Llangynwyd.
Another fallen knight is remembered in the place name Brynllywarch just a short distance
from the battlefield area.
Nant y Gadlys or "Stream of the Battle Court" there was always a battle court after a battle somewhere where they probably went and settled down for the night.
The ‘Dell of Chastisement’ is there and so on.
Everything just speaks battle and the name is correct
in all the Welsh records it says Mynydd Baedan
and if you look for Mynydd Baedan there it
is smack on target and there’s masses of
supporting evidence, even the route that the
Saxons took to get there by place names.
So finding the Battle of Baedan is... well in this day and age of computers where you can press Mynydd Baedan in the computer
in the OS maps it will come up instantly.
It’s ludicrous.
Other battle sites like Camlann and Llanborth can just as easily be found.
The histories tell of Geraint one of Arthur’s knights being mortally wounded
at the battle. Just a few miles away is Bedd
Geraint Farm meaning ‘Grave of Geraint’
and in an isolated field is his grave mound.
So it doesn’t matter what you find and it
doesn’t matter how often you find it and
it doesn’t matter if you prove things right
ten thousand times this history is wrong.
Now that is a very strange attitude and we’ve
never been able to get to grips with it.
Ancient Wales was a great repository of original British
history. Its annals tell us that Christianity
was brought to these shores by the disciples
of Jesus as early as AD 35 and as the struggle
for religious supremacy reined Roman Catholicism
tried to wipe out apostolic truths and all references to it.
So what the British believe
or believed is not what the Roman Church preaches
and so you have a very serious religious confrontation
and the best way to get rid of it is to simply call
all the British records either non-existent
or forged or fabricated or irrelevant and
then your version prevails. It’s politics
and it’s dirty politics it’s got nothing to do
with right and wrong or facts it’s nothing
to do with evidence or proof it’s got everything to do with politics. 
There are instances of
Welsh libraries being burned by arson
because they wanted to get rid of them so there was
a tendency for the Welsh to keep manuscripts
and hold them tightly and not even admit to
having them. There’s stories of when Welsh Princes
were captured they were taken to
London and often their libraries were taken
with them to the Tower of London and a monk
named Scholasticus in infamy rather than fame
by burning all the Welsh records that had
been accumulated in the tower.
It wasn’t until about 1800 that the problem erupted
that some English scholars were saying well
I don’t think there are any Welsh manuscripts.
Well of course there were but they weren’t showing them.
But the suppression of the ancient
histories was not limited to the destruction of old manuscripts and libraries.
Caxton started
printing in London in England in 1474
and the English Parliament immediately passed a law
prohibiting printing in Wales
and you weren’t allowed to print anything in Wales until 1692
200 years later
and by then the damage was done. The ideas had been set in stone.
Several times English kings prohibited the use of writing materials in Wales, it was against
the law to actually own a pen and piece of paper.
The education system was controlled
by London. London in 1846 replaced every Welsh
speaking school teacher in Wales with an Englishman
who couldn’t speak Welsh. They imported
them by the hundred. They sacked every Welsh
school teacher. So you had a population speaking
Welsh with about 10% of them being bi-lingual
speaking English and you have every school
teacher who spoke only English. The situation
in the classrooms must have been absolutely diabolical.
The clash between the British
and Roman Church has resulted in many early dates being misplaced.
In the early stages
of the Bruts of England they only give one
date and the date is the death of Arthur.
They say it’s 546 years after the incarnation
of the Lord. You’ve got a problem; was Jesus
of Nazareth simply a man and a prophet when
he died? Was he a man on earth and became
a huge spiritual God when he died? Or was
he a spiritual God on Earth and also God when
he gets to heaven? This was a debate that
wracked the Church and they went in ever increasing
circles with it for a long time. They finally
decided he was a God and a God and a God but
of course the British were not Roman Catholics
they were Gnostic Apostolic Christians and
they knew all about Jesus Christ or Jesus
the Nazarene and so for them the incarnation
took place at his crucifixion. So if he was
crucified in the year 33, 546 years after the
crucifixion becomes 579
and that date for the death of Arthur fits with all sorts of
historical events and other recordings.
Maelgwn is elected king in the north after the death
of Arthur II. After he dies in 579 Maelgwn
became king in 580. And numerous other datings
all go together, they combine very nicely to establish this 579 death date.
It was now
time now Alan and Baram to go in search of
the grave of Arthur. They knew there was a
tradition of him and his queen being buried
at Glastonbury in Somerset but that as they
quickly discovered was unlikely.
Glastonbury Abbey in Somerset was founded by an English king in 941 AD and the first abbot was St. Dunstan in 942.
Now if Arthur II dies in 579
then we are at least 450 years too late with Glastonbury in Somerset.
There’s another
factor, Arthur is said to be buried in the
great and ancient graveyard where multitudes
of the great and illustrious of the British
are buried. There is no great ancient graveyard
at Glastonbury.
It was while they were researching Arthur I that they discovered that the original
Glastonbury or Glastennen as it was called
is near Lichfield in the Midlands. In an ancient
king list it states a King Mormael and its
people of Glasten came from a place called
Loyt-coit. Translated from the Latin (Letocetum)
Loyt-coit was an ancient Roman British town, now
a village called Wall.
If you want to trace Arthur I you look at William of Malmesbury
and others and they tell how he fortified the
Lichfield area and there is evidence of great
fortifications in the general area.
Arthur is said to be buried in the great ancient
churchyard where multitudes of the illustrious
of the British are buried. So you’re looking
for a great ancient churchyard with whacking big graves
in it. Lots of them and there is such a place
where huge mounds and monumental tombs exist
in large numbers. It’s a place called Oldbury
– the old burying place and it’s at Atherstone
(Arthr's Twyn) Arthur’s grave mound in Warwickshire.
Now that’s where you’re going to find King Arthur as mentioned by the Medieval historians.
After many visits to the cemetery they eventually made a remarkable discovery, just a few inches
below the surface they struck a large stone.
There are letters on it, it appears to say
something but that means you have to finish the words off.
It’s the same with one of
our other things, what do we do with this because they’re never going to believe it
anyway?
It’s something that’s developed in Britain and it’s peculiar to America
as well; if an academic or an archaeologist
finds something it’s genuine, if someone
who’s not an archaeologist finds something then it’s not genuine.
The preserved words
on the stone are in Latin. The first word
is nearly complete Artoriv or Arthur, Iacit
means ‘cast down’ and Maci could be part of his father’s name Maximus. 
If this was the original Glastonbury why was there an Arthur tradition in Somerset?
It appears that
Henry II had something to do with this promotion
of the idea of Arthur in Somerset. Henry II
in order to be king of Britain as such wanted
justification. Now if he could claim to be
the heir if only by linked royal succession
of some sort or the fact that he was a king
of England. If he could prove that Arthur
was a king of England and he was then a later
king of England, if Arthur ruled the whole
of Britain then so Henry II was entitled to
rule the whole of Britain. Justification.
And so it looks like he promoted this cousin
the abbot to dig up Arthur at Glastonbury
and that would provide Arthur being out of
Wales, away from Wales and into England.
Arthur’s an ancient English British king and therefore
Henry II is entitled to rule Wales and Scotland and England. 
It ignores the fact that Walter
Map and Gruffudd ap Arthur (Geoffrey of Monmouth)
and others really promoted the Arthurian story and brought it bursting forth from South East Wales and not from Somerset.
On their quest
to discover the truth behind the Arthurian legend
Alan and Baram had made significant
discoveries. The histories and folklore so
ridiculed by other researchers was pointing
to there being two Arthurs who in time had
been assembled into one mighty legend. Not
only did they discover the real Glastonbury
and the burial place of Arthur I but they
discovered overwhelming evidence that the
second Arthur was a king of Glamorgan living
in the 6th century. The Roman Church had done
its best to destroy these histories and the
memories of the early Christians but for those willing to look the truth was there.
In Part II of The Arthurian Conspiracy Alan and Baram
not only crack the code to the secret burial
of King Arthur of Glamorgan but they also
learn the incredible story of how a nuclear
winter devastated Britain during his reign.
Finally the clues would take them on a journey
made over 1500 years ago which can only now
be fully understood through the use of modern
DNA techniques. It’s a journey that will
shatter our perceptions of our so called Dark
Age.
