Guest Post: The King Arthur Deception

This week, I offer up a guest post by Tirion, who often posts in the comments here. Some time ago, he shared some intriguing information on King Arthur, and I asked him if he was willing to expand a bit on what he was saying. He got back to me with this essay, which I found fascinating. While I was mesmerized by stories of Arthur and Merlin as a child, this is a part of history that I know little about. I’ll be watching some of Ross’s videos to learn more.

---

As will quickly become obvious to readers, I am neither an academic nor an historian. The information in this essay comes from the work of the British forensic historians, Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, who have been researching, writing and publishing since the 1980s. Their book, “The King Arthur Conspiracy” was republished shortly before he died prematurely last year by Ross Broadstock of Cymroglyphics. Volume II relates to this essay. There is also much of interest at Ross Broadstock’s YouTube channel.

Mainstream academics have been trying for decades to cancel Wilson and Blackett and to discredit their work; but Wilson and Blackett are not conspiracy theorists, nor do they engage in speculation. Their method is to read and translate the ancient records word by word and to tell us what they say. I would encourage readers to examine the work of Wilson and Blackett and decide for themselves.

All English children - indeed many children all over the world - learn the myths and legends of King Arthur, days of olde, Excalibur and the gallant Knights of the Round Table. Most will never give much thought as to whether these tales of the idealized, distant past are actually true or not; and those who do will find that the stories cover several centuries of British history - many multiples of an human lifespan - and so King Arthur could not possibly be real. But he was - or, rather, they were, because there were several Kings Arthur: probably at least five, and certainly two famous ones.

This conflation of two or more mythological characters into one has happened before with, for example, Yahweh. As many will realize, the Elohim in Genesis are plural. Until Abraham, the Hebrews - like all other cultures - were polytheists. The LORD God, Yahweh-Jehovah, God of Israel, the jealous God, persuaded Abraham that he and his people should worship no other God but him - cutting El-Yahweh, The Most High God and the other Elohim out of the picture. Anyway, that’s another story of deception for a different essay, best written by someone other than me! It is sufficient for now to understand that conflating mythological characters is a thing. It happens, and it is done deliberately.

The Arthur that we will call King Arthur II (AD 503-579) was a direct sixthgeneration male-line descendant of King Arthur I (died c. AD 400). Arthur I was the eldest son of Roman Emperor Magnus Maximus, the only son of Caesar Flavius Crispus (the eldest son of the British Emperor Constantine The Great by his first wife Minerva). Constantine The Great’s mother was the British Empress Helen of The Cross, who claimed descent from The Holy Family through her father King Cole of Colchester, that merry old soul in the nursery rhyme.

In other words, Constantine The Great was King Arthur I’s paternal great-grandfather and their line claimed descent from The Holy Family, as did/do many princely Welsh families.

Christianity had started in Britain in AD 37, decades before it arrived in Rome, when Joseph of Arimathea and other members of The Holy Family arrived in Britain. They married into British royalty, which is how St Helen of The Cross, the Kings Arthur and today's British royal family claim descent from The Holy Family, King David and, indeed Adam!

King Arthur II’s parents were the British King Meurig (Maurice or Merrick) and Queen Onbrawst, daughter of Gwrgan Mawr (Gwrgan The Great).

The Arthurs were not in fact English. They were British in the old sense of the word: what today we call Welsh. Until the devastating comet, which laid waste to much of Britain in AD 562, the coronation of Arthur II as King of Glamorgan and Gwent was probably the biggest event of the sixth century, attended by royalty from all over Europe. It is well recorded in written English and British/ Welsh records.

Napoleon is well-known for having quoted the seventeenth-century French writer, Bernard de Fontenelle, who said, “History is a set of lies that people have agreed upon.” Many others have affirmed that history is written by the winners. Inconvenient truths are quietly brushed under the carpet, or twisted into something that is convenient.

This is certainly true of British history. It is also true of American history.

North America was claimed by the colonizers who followed Columbus under the legal principle of “terra nullius” (“Nobody’s land”), meaning that nobody of any standing was there before the arrival of Columbus. In law, the many natives living there did not count because they were not Christians. So the fact that a Christian colony had been established by King Arthur nine hundred years earlier was a problem, which undermined the very legal basis of Canada and The United States of America!

This, of course, made the Welsh-speaking “Indians” and tribes of “white Indians” encountered by Columbus-era settlers somewhat awkward for the desired narrative, like out-of-place artifacts in archaeology. Interestingly, they also did not suit the (north Welsh) Tudor dynasty, which ruled Britain from 1485-1603 (Henry VII - Elizabeth I). The Tudors laid a false trail of a twelfthcentury migration by an alleged Prince Madoc from North Wales (who did not actually exist), which better suited their own political exigencies by attaching the discovery of America in the twelfth century to the Tudors.

So it quickly becomes a confusing picture, conducive to creating myths, legends and, well, misdirection, disinformation, lies and propaganda. As George Orwell put it in “1984,” “The history was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.”

However, once this Tudor deception is seen through, the true picture becomes surprisingly clear because the Arthurian voyages to North America, and the people who led them, are abundantly described in the contemporary records and the epic Khumric poetry of the time for anyone who cares to look.

As with Yahweh and Arthur, we see that two personalities have been conflated to create the Tudors’ Prince Madoc. The Madoc who actually sailed to North America was Madoc Morfran, son of King Meurig Uthyrpendragon, and a brother of sixth-century King Arthur II, not an alleged son of twelfthcentury King Owain Gwynedd of North Wales.

Madoc Morfran is thought to have been at sea when the Dragon Comet struck in 562 (it affected Norway, Britain, Ireland and Bolivia). He was blown across the Atlantic by the gigantic storms it created. Presumed dead, everyone was amazed when he returned home from America ten years later to find his destroyed homeland slowly recovering from its devastation.

Dr. Victor Clube, Dean of the Astrophysics Department at Oxford University, in 1986 estimated that the comet of 562 had exploded with the force of one hundred Hiroshima atomic bombs.

Based on Madoc’s account of the great abundance of natural resources in America, and confirmed by a voyage of reconnaissance, it was decided to undertake a major expedition. In 574, a fleet of seven hundred ships set sail from Milford Haven under the command of King Arthur II, his brother Prince Madoc Morfran and his brother-in-law, Amman Ddu.

King Arthur had previously evacuated some of his subjects from diseased and devastated Britain to his possessions in north-west France. Although it was ten years later, the American expedition of 574 gave more of his subjects an opportunity for clean water and healthy soils.

Some of those who took part in the American expedition eventually returned to Britain once the land had recovered; but many did not and became the ancestors of the “Welsh-speaking Indians” encountered centuries later in Columbus’s time.