Відео

Thanks, appreciate that. Yes the deliberate willful blindness is incredible. I had no idea about this area of history and had no idea how utterly mad the modern academics are. I was putting together a book on Britain and started looking up history facts to include -everywhere I went it was 'myth' 'not real' they made these kings up' I happened across Alan Wilson , he said read the records! I though ok lol grabbed some books -yep there's Arthur , king Lludd etc all the greats -except according to all 'experts' nothing is real..............lol It finally came home to me (the madness) when I pointed out to a London tour guide that king Lludd was a real king , Ludgate does mean Lludd's gate not 'flood gate' some weird alteration/guess , he's in the records I said , fought Caesar etc , the bloke went absolutely nuts....ha ha ha ha ah ah Okay I thought , hmmmmm there's a disease going round ..epidemic lol. Anyhow I wanted to show how simple it is to find Arthur without any trouble, from my own simple angle so I chose one simple word! How easy is that! I have kept my senses in tact by maintaining my common sense the more i do the more I see how nuts the experts are! Thanks again.

Thanks Sion, yes it sure is interesting. I had absolutely no idea about the history nor the upheaval in Welsh education, it's worth a look -it was shocking, in 1847 the whole education system in Wales was crushed and reformed to teach obedience , basically the education system was supported by people and the church, there was no help from Westminster , the Welsh were in fact still suffering from the aftermath of having been conquered and their lands taken, I do not say this in jest or lightly or for shock value, the land owners were the ancestors of the conquerors and were the ones who had the right to vote and who charged tolls to travel through land. The Welsh didn't have a vote unless they owned a large tract of land. This and other problems caused an uprising which had nationwide support , it resulted in many riots , one of which 20+ were killed and the captured were sentenced to be hung drawn and quartered --I kid you not! The English Gov' then sent hundreds of their education experts into Wales to travel the country and report on the state of education and why the Welsh were 'so immoral' The nickname of this report was 'The Blue books' (the reports were written in a number of blue books) The Welsh called it 'The treachery of the Blue Books' This report was the start of the destruction of the Welsh language and removal of ancient British history from the education curriculum. The report was vicious it concluded that the core problem was the Welsh language it was deemed evil and immoral and English was the only way forward for the Welsh. (I'll leave a link to the report itself it's worth a look ) Now , how was this handled? The Gov sent in hundreds of English school teachers and got rid of all the Welsh, did they speak Welsh? no, did they do lessons in Welsh and English ? no , it was English teachers and Welsh kids and it was chaos, and held in place by force and violence. 'The Welsh not' hung around children's necks caught speaking Welsh in class, resulted in a beating at end of the day. Basically Welsh was almost wiped out, in the south there's not many speakers today, the north survived better. Now the Welsh language contained and carried with it the ancient history of Britain , it was also erased because the English history is not the Welsh (ancient British history) So the English language and its own history starting with the Saxons and more importantly (power wise) the Normans , later, was the only thing the English knew. What the English did know of British ancient history , (Welsh history )was strongly disliked by the English establishment because it was the history of rebellion against the Normans and earlier the Saxons and the tyranny of both , Welsh history told the truth of what had happened in history , this was a problem for Westminster , they were now the land owners and they kept dissent in check by force. The Welsh history kept the Welsh proud and rebellious because they had , even in Norman times fought back and their illustrious history of kings was not only their heart and courage it was the envy of the English, look at the early English kings right up to the present , all of them worshipped praised and claimed they were descended from the great Arthur , Henry 1, 2, Henry 7 carried the red dragon and professed he was Arthur returned . The early kings tried to take Arthur and claim descent and that Arthur was now of the English lineage and therefore the English kings were authentic and entitled to rule. This worked for a while but Arthur was too big a figure in history and the Welsh (The British) would never forget. Come forward hundreds of years and the English went a different route : 'Arthur is a myth' With the German speaking Kings George 1st They worked on changing the history (They were German and spoke German! ) They were hated by most everyone! If we come up to 1847 we find the Welsh still rebelling!! and what keeps them courageous? Their ancestry and their knowledge of what has been happening ie their history. What are the English Gov' going to do about it now... theyve had enough remove the language and with it the history, make them English. The language began to be removed and with it bit by bit the history went too, in 1922 there were still school books that taught Arthur and other kings as simple history, but they too were removed and replaced and Welsh history was forgotten. That is why king Arthur is now a 'Myth' The school curriculum is now English and Arthur, one of the biggest problems for the English is handled. The Welsh have NO IDEA of their history nowadays it is all gone, wiped form their minds. Want to know how complete this removal of history is? How thoroughly complete? Every year the Welsh celebrate St Dyfed's, Davids day right ? The patron saint of Wales. No one has a clue who he was, no one knows when he lived, anything about him. Not only was he a saint he was a member of the Royal family, a wise man, a close confidant and counsel to the king , he was the uncle of King Arthur.

www.library.wales/discover-learn/digital-exhibitions/printed-material/the-blue-books-of-1847 The report itself: www.library.wales/discover-learn/digital-exhibitions/printed-material/the-blue-books-of-1847/carmarthen-glamorgan-and-pembroke PS Thanks for the pronunciation, apologies, I'm rubbish at Welsh I shall improve bit by bit! Cheers, Dave.

100% Athrwys means Bear or the bear who calls Or urgent calling/summoning bear.......... It's old British (Now Welsh) for Arthur, there's no mystery here, Arthur's main nickname was the bear.... I mean to ignore this is willing ignorance and to be honest that is what I have come across since looking into the subject- Plain evidence in front of the eyes completely ignored. Yep -Geoffrey would have known Arthur's legend he was a Welshman (a Brit) and again he is lambasted as a fool and fairy tale writer. Nennius and other earlier texts appears to be where Geoffrey got his info'. Have you read Alan Wilson's work? He has completed the greatest amount of work and in exact detail on Arthur and indeed found his actual grave -not the nonsense many others claim. Yes Arthur was a very real and very active and beloved King.

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat yes! The book Holy Kingdom was my introduction to this topic

Yep, despite the evidence the 'Myth' narrative continues.

Nice, yeah it's good to get it clear. Funny thing I noticed -once you understand the basic definitions you start looking into the history of each and it throws up masses of hidden history.

Cheers Dave. Yes Adrian Gilbert is great and W and B are the best historians out there, having found more evidence and actual artifacts than anyone pursuing the Arthur history.

Thanks for the info, but I only buy Kindle books - not available in that format !

@@veronicaroach3667 I think some of their books can be used on kindle, I know Artorius Rex Discovered can because I have it on mine. Just looked and the kindle edition is free on amazon!

Hey Peter, well that's a nice idea and as far as has been established Arthur had a code of ethics based on agnostic Christianity, the original Christianity brought to Britain in 34 /37ad and adopted by king Aviragus. The most convincing and verifiable source and explanation of the round table was explained by Alan Wilson: Ciburd , Ci - together Burd -table was the royal district of SE Wales (which remained untaxable lands for many years.)This district or 'together table' was where the high king and other leaders met. Central to Ciburd was the Yellow Castle/Fortress, Caer Melyn which became, through later foriegn expression of the Welsh word: 'Camelot'. Watch Alan Wilson's documentaries on Arthur.

The facts are in plain site, the counter arguments are the dismissal of the words in front of one's face: The Royal line: Morgan ap Athrwys ap Meurig ap Tewdrig it is as plain as it can be possibly made, only by introducing dismissal and simply not looking can that be ignored. The expert you think I attacked (I attacked the utter lack of common sense and refusal to investigate and instead dismiss) This expert on Wiki has just rushed off last month to the USA to examine Arthur's 6th century headstone,(The stone was scientifically dated but no historian or university would engage with any examination or study, so the stone was eventually sold to a US collector) This gravestone which was found by independent researchers along with a silver cross (also inscribed) in the exact place the records state Arthur was buried: Caer Caradoc, S Wales ie Briton.The expert lady to whom you refer dismissed the stone and dismissed their findings, now secretly she goes off to examine the stone. Why did she not do this before when the findings were presented to academia? Why has she not made her trip public? Why has she not announced she is going to examine a 6th century tombstone, possibly the greatest find in history inscribed with Arthur's name and the name of his father Meurig? All aligning with the historical records. If Arthur is officially listed as the king of Gwent (Llandaff charters) and his tombstone was found in Gwent and this woman has rushed off to examine it in private why does she publicly deny his existence? Even Wiki displays the official Royal line that's why I used Wiki because it is there in plain sight, the Royal line is clearly recorded as historical fact: Morgan ap Athrwys ap Meurig ap Twedrig and all are historically listed as factual kings where's the lack of convincing?

I don't think you are being sufficently skeptical. The evidence above is that someone from a Welsh royal line had a name something like Arthur. That's not sufficient to prove that he was the source of the Arthur legends. I'm sure you know there are several other similar candidates, Celtic kings or princes with names something like Arthur, each of them has their backers, just as convinced that they are right as you seem to be about this person.

@@johnharrison154 John, Skepticism is great, let's look at what we have . Arthur is quoted in the histories as being from Wales, you can even ask google where was Arthur from? where did come from what country? Google will even tell you: Wales. The historical figures related to him are located in Wales, buried in Wales Tewdrig Meurig Geraint on and on. The ancient British charters, and Mabinogion tales are set in Wales, early Welsh school books say he is from Wales and the welsh school books for the history of Gwent said he was King of Gwent, Wales the Llandaff charters say he was king of Gwent. Wales was the home of the Britons. The Britons are the ancient Welsh, that's unmistakably where he is from. Now 'Arthur' is not Arthur's name, 'Arthur' is a modern English word used many years after his existence. So we are not looking for 'Arthur' he wasn't English he wasn't Roman he was an ancient Briton, Arthur of the Britons High king of the Britons (The High King gets the other kings together to fight off invaders.) So, his name we are looking for, his actual name, in ancient Welsh ie ancient British (Brythonic)a Welsh name. How would one spell it in ancient British/Welsh? 'Arthwys' and 'Arthrwys' appears in the records, is that not Welsh enough? Ancient British enough? Arthrwys as son of Meurig ap Twedrig :Dad and grandad Arth means Bear as we know and is his calling, (and his nickname Iron bear. 'Arthmael' or 'Arthhearn' ) When one uses the correct language of the place and time: Ancient British, it isn't difficult to find and name him.

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat I'm honestly not trying to be awkward, but that isn't very much, it's just a name and a location and the fact that he was royal. Not enough to identify Arthrwys as the legendary Arthur. Another thing I found perplexing in your video was your desire to show that Arthrwys was a king. Someone who was not a king could have inspired the Arthur legend, and some sources don't call him king, so why does that aspect matter so much to you?

@@johnharrison154 Hi John, Dave here. I honestly think you are missing the central important points of key data and I think this is due to the confusion of this area and the incessant 'myth' 'he's not real' 'we will never know' Let's take up my points: A name : Well we need to know who we are talking about we need to know ,who, when we locate the best name we can find then we can follow that through and see what we have. Location : We need to know where, where was the person located, we have a name so where was he? if we can find where , a where that aligns with the other data available we have a confirmed location (Historical records: Mabinogion/Nennius/Gof M/ Welsh Triads/Royal Charters. Why do you find it perplexing -my desire to show he was a king? A million words have written 'King Artrhur' he is titled 'King Arrthur' this is common sense not in any way perplexing... Are you familiar with the Charters, Nennius, Triads? Mabinogion etc? And do you use Brythonic/early Latin in your studies? Remember you asked me about 'Arthur' this is an English word and is not his actual name, these details are vital and if ignored it will only cause confusion. If you do not study the various records including stones and charters place names and Welsh written and oral traditional records and the methods by which the bards/poets transmitted history, then you have no chance to find Arthur, these are the very basics and if you do not use them then there is no point in me discussing this with you. Arthur's actual stone and cross has been discovered yet you have shown absolutely no interest, I don't see you are serious in your curiosity. Dave. PS the reasons this subject is a mess is laziness, the fixed ideas of the English universities and their English versions of Arthur ie 'Myth', the loss of Welsh Arthurian history through the destruction of records (banning Welsh writing printing through 1400s onwards) and the Government's Blue Books commission which nearly wiped out the language along with all the Welsh history curriculum.

Spot on and yep it's in plain sight, bright as day, easy to see, right in front your eyes. So much lying so many falsehoods and so many times repeating 'Fictional' has honestly messed people up they are factually unable to see what is right there in front of them now. I started out not knowing, then learning, then confirming , then wondering why it wasn't known, then thinking maybe it's not talked about because it's a problem for the universities etc, then finally realising omg it is....it is actually being covered up....for real

Haven't seen those no, but boy are those people stupid and messed up, bizarre way to live not honouring one's past heroes and real history, which is absolutely fantastic.

🙂👍Cheers!

Cheers Adam, appreciate that. Ross put me onto the book, he did a talk where he read from the book, so I had to track one down. It's another straightforward 'Look here's Arthur' nothing odd mythical or weird, just a historical figure. Really enjoy your talks with Pete btw, would love to do an interview at some stage. Cheers, Dave

Thank you Petrovonoc, You are right, I made a mistake -I spoke incorrectly, the map is indeed a 16th century map which of course places it in the 1500's. It's from the national library of Wales which is available online. The map was first published in 1573 by Abraham Ortelius. Thanks for the data, yes I am aware of and have the highest respect for Alan Wilson and Tony Blackett they are the historians who answered my questions when I couldn't get a straight answer from 'standard history articles'/books when I was looking for history facts to put into the Bulldogs book, only W and B were of any clarity and cited the historical references. Yes I am aware of the Blue Books treachery and want to cover this subject; I have read a good portion of the original Blue Books report and it was shocking, interestingly I watched a video of the american who learns languages and goes to the country to speak with the people, he had learned Welsh, he went to Cardiff, it was a terribly sad episode, he spoke Welsh to all sorts of people and was a little confused as only 2 spoke Welsh he hung out with one man who spoke Welsh for most of the show. This really brought home to me for real, that the language was almost destroyed, deliberately. ( And this Welsh generation had no idea.) Also, I grew up in London and had no idea about the Welsh but always wondered, if only in the back of my mind, why the Welsh were always put down, portrayed as lowly, backwards, now I know and it's because of the crimes committed against those people and of course if you commit crimes against something that something has to 'deserve it' be justified and the perpetrators have to make less of those they wronged. On the re-writing of history, I got hold of a 1908 Welsh schoolbook which was part of the curriculum, prior to the revision of British history, in which Arthur is taught as standard history simply an historical figure, the author even warns to separate the historical Arthur from the tales that surround him. I did a video on this. Since reading W and B my eyes have been opened to history and I like to show from various sources how in plain sight it is. Cheers Dave.

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat thanks Dave. You are clearly au fait with much of what I alluded to. I will look for your other output as you are obviously of like mind. Cheers butty.

@@petrovonoccymro9063 🙂👍 I bought the schoolbook Ross Broadstock featured on one of his talks. It really brought home to me how Arthur was simply a real historical figure. Now I like to find refences to Arthur from easy places or mainstream places. It is so incredible how his reality has been wiped out just incredible how people have been told what to think and now think it. And the dismissal of the records without examination is just amazing.. complete control of people's minds . ua-cam.com/video/lNYco_-7AJc/v-deo.html

Spot on and very interesting, thank you Jonh. I do find that persons from abroad have a better ability to see the truth of history in another country as they have no investment in the politics or influence of minds. Couple of things I want to bring up: Arthur was a high king yes, and he ruled Glamorgan and Gwent (S. Eastern Briton) what is now south Wales. This word 'celt' this has become a catch all term, but it is a false one introduced by Julius Caesar, no one in Britain has ever been a celt, and unfortunately this term hides the true history and lineage of the British who were the 'Khymry' or Cymry, Wales is Cymru a Welshman Cymro. Places in England still have names from this : Cumberland, Cumberwood, Cumberwell, from when the British ruled the entire island. The lands, in Arthur's time were free of Romans and the Britons in Wales had never been overtaken by the Romans, the area was almost impossible to conquer due to the topology so deals and treaties were done, the British had the Romans make buildings for them and trade was done, the British then copied the Roman style of building which they liked, just as the Romans were in awe of the British chariots and skill of the British cavalry, the Romans copied the British chariots. Arthur managed to rally British kingdoms (And Brittany's when needed) in a defence force and defeat invaders. The complete history in detail is quite different than the mainstream history tells and the true history is far more interesting, unfortunately for academia and others the true history has much information that is very embarrassing to certain groups and thus it is suppressed. Thanks for watching and your input appreciate it.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Cambriae_Typus_NLW.jpg

King Craig, (lol.. the name) You are right mate. When I started looking at this I thought it was simply a bit odd, after some while I see there has been a real effort to wipe out the real king Arthur. Heddwch

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat the name is the crazy thing. I have been a man under instruction for a while. Seriously, not brought up religious. Had done well on my own, with a lot of faith and positive thinking. Then got very fat and depressed, went bankrupt. Felt a really strong call to do a video saying I am King Craig, then documenting bouncing back, becoming a king etc. Nothing came, didnt know what a king was. Started laying bricks and relaxing. Came home to cymru to look after my tadcu. Been on an unbelievable spiritual journey, and now am what he says I am. With many verifiable signs and wonders. Not to mention happyily married with a gorgeous son, named after a saint, hes been one so far also. With one more on the way. Christ is king and whats been revealed can change the world.

@@TywysogCraig What a journey, and a powerful one by the sounds of it. Sounds like you indeed did bounce back and you are flourishing , love to the family and all my very best, Dave.

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat blessed beyond words. The world wants to make you believe god isnt real, myths and legends also. History isnt important, we have to do it all ourselves. We dont, the lord truly is my shepherd. I said I can do all things through christ 5x, immediately got a huge contract in on a £300m project. Immediately, phone went bing. Message for 25 contractors needed, never had that happened before. Every time before, I was grafting like a maniac. Working very hard, lots of good calls, persistance and faith. It was the complete opposite. I had literally started the company, after probably 5 years plus from actually working, maybe 7/8. All provable. That meant that I have been off for close to two years, being guided through many things. Not working, enjoying being a dad, my wife at home. Learning cymraeg again and reading a lot of scripture. That is the tip of the iceberg. I am a completely new creation and I can see what is needed to put things right. It is the way of the cross ✝️ We need good shepherds and servant leaders. We must restore the hero archetype and I know how. ✝️🕊️

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat diolch ar fawr. Heddwch â bendithion

Ronald, you are very welcome! Dave.

Sounds like an epic book. I think a lot of people across the world are awakening to the truths of history, a lot more awareness and real knowledge is now happening. :)

Me neither. But as we can see here it was part of the standard curriculum in Wales and considered nothing more than basic history. The whole subject has been removed from the schools. This appears to have happened as part of the attempted removal of Welsh history and language, and the transmutation of Arthur into an English King which is of course a myth therefore he became a myth. It is quite a controversy because when you study Arthur you cannot help but open a huge can of worms revealing the destruction and alteration of history.

Apologies, just jumped in and used my phone , I'll up the quality as I go along. Thanks Terry hope you enjoyed the video despite that. :) Dave.

What a long and arduous line of succession. And Aye the Scoti were from Ireland, claimed to be of Scythian ancestry I believe.

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat Haha, yes, love history research too, hard to know what's true though. Yes i've heard the claims of Scythian ancestry in the 1320 "Declaration of Arbroath", "Most Holy Father, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. It journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage peoples, but nowhere could it be subdued by any people, however barbarous. Thence it came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to its home in the west where it still lives today. The Britons it first drove out, the Picts it utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, .." Those nomadic barbarian Persian Sythian cavalry warrior farmers from the eastern Eurasian Steppes, .. with their pointy aristocratic hats, skilled horse riding, tartan trousers & 'burial' mounds , ..?

Thanks for your input Franz. Arthur was born in Glamorgan S Wales, as was his father and his father before him. Arthur was British.

@WhatMakesBritainGreat What make you say that? Even Gildas mentions that his family were the "last of the Romans" and that they "wore the purple". In other words, they were the Roman governors of Britannia. They were also associated with Ambrosius of Milan, who was a Latin Roman. (You can see his actual face as portrayed by a contemporary here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose#/media/File:AmbroseOfMilan_(cropped).jpg) Now of course one COULD argue that the Romans left shortly BEFORE Arthur and his family took the helm, but that seems unlikely. The "Groans of the Britons" was made circa 450 AD and was written in Latin. Arthur is believed to have left Britain (or died) sometime around 550, which means his family fought the Saxons and the Picts for several generations, which does indeed match what evidence we DO have about them.

Arthur lived circa 503- 579 Gildas' wish of unity was later realised with Arthur's victories and unification. Arthur born in Glamorgan and King of what became Glamorgan under his son, Meurig , and Gwent makes him a British king. The Romans were gone in Arthur's time it was Saxons picts and vandals he had to deal with. The early tales of Arthur are in Welsh , ancient British. His appellations are Welsh ,well, ancient British not Roman. I see no cause to call him a roman.

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat Well I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree then? Because the evidence I have seen certainly indicates otherwise....

@@FranzBiscuit We can certainly disagree Franz my friend, and thank you I respect your good manners and kindness.

And yt shite won't let me like your video says it all really 🤓

@@markmacthree3168 Wow ..really Good grief, My video was actually and simply to spread good news and the truth : Fly the Flag! , I'm just pointing out what's actually there on the Gov website...nothing controversial in it! .

Thanks Ian, 11:34 apologies for my mispronunciation, I'll improve my Welsh as I go along :). Mynydd Baiden. Yes it is all there, I am astounded by the plain as day proof of these historical events. I started looking at this through 'normal channels' and couldn't find a straight answer. Even looking over the actual texts, they were 'not to be taken seriously', said all the experts and articles, so i thought well that's ridiculous then no one knows anything then?? Then I happened to see a tourist guide talk about the gates of London and say Ludgate was 'Flood gate' I informed him about King Llud of London, well all hell broke loose, 'You believe in Giants then too ah ha ha etc etc? !' he asked me. 'Thats all myth mate!' Then when I quoted the records he said let's end off here. From that point I realised what a mess we have and how ancient history is not taught and not really allowed.

This is what I'm pointing out and attempting to overcome! The truth is that we are not lost and the British are still here and doing fine, yes, I said it doing fine, the thing Ive seen that is that too much bad news and 'We re done for' is being tossed around , yes there's problems to sort , but all the actual good news is suppressed. There's nothing as a people we can't achieve and that that is our power , that is the strength of the British and what our attention should be on: Solutions, determination, hard work and getting done what we want done. It's down to the people, me and you to better things, governments are so often lazy and have other deals to do. That's why this channel.

Nor had I till I delved into it. There's a 1490ad map of 'Brittannica' based on his voyage marking both Ireland and Britain as 'Brittanica' Islands. First instance of a greater/lesser, bigger/ smaller Britain. Yes James seems to have revived what was then an old word, GB, when he became king and once all was official used the term. This seems to resound of the desires of English kings to rule the whole island and thus use the word Britain. Edmund 1st, claimed he should be king of all Britain as he was owner of the bones and ancestor to Arthur! and Arthur ruled it all so I should! Aethelstan C930ad called it near to GB (The king of 'Whole of Britain' : Rex Totius Britannie be precise)when he gained control. Back to BC: The people that lived in Britain called themselves 'Pritani' this appears as 'Brittani' too (It's spelt various ways) Also referenced- The Britons called themselves 'Brittos' singular 'Britto' Which does link favourably to the Brutus (Britto) of Troy writings as the origin of the word.

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat I'm glad you use the old BC instead of the 'politically correct' BCE so annoys me as does CE instead of AD. blooming do gooders ! yes Athelstan had more right to call himself Rex Totius that anyone before him. No doubt Edward the first would have thought himself numero ono as well.

Hey Kevin, thanks glad u enjoyed it. Your point completely feasible, however if you like super cool stuff: Arthur was indeed named as a king as in the video, but further more, his name is inscribed elsewhere and mentioned on many items, the most striking of which is his tombstone, was found, and bears his title as Rex Artorus fili mavricivs (Athwys ap Meurig) and also a silver memorial cross with his name on, what is even wilder is that the stone was part of the news in the 80s and was shown, but once only never to be shown again. The stone was sold to an american collector as the finders thought it would be stolen/go missing and as museums refused to analyse it or even acknowledge it. Get's more wild: Last week the stone turned up in the US and is being presented for examination by professionals, here's the wildest bit --remember Wendy Davies our friend 'Arthur isn't real he died before being king, and the charter is spurious' The actual Wendy from Wiki, She just turned up on the scene. The reason i did this video and specifically in the way I did was to try to get people to look cleanly and exactly at what is there I really want to get that exact point across, what is there is right there bang, so one sees it, okay yep that's there, then.... someone explains it away with 'this and that', and so then one starts trying to figure it out by using the new data one is told plus the first 'there it is' data. The first look at it made sense right? Then an expert told you how it wasn't (Except the expert was wrong) but u try to work with the truth and the expert's data too and mix it all together trying to make it all fit. Another stone with Arthur's name is stashed away and there's only a tiny percent of people the world that know about it. See the other video on the channel about 'written evidence of Arthur'

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat Awesome thank you for the kind reply and yes...all very much so. But are we talking about the same guy on those stones? And a mention in the Black Book of Carmarthen (I think) has a line in one of the poems that says "...as the men of Arthur did (battled) at Longborth...". I have not seen this one line referenced as a piece of evidence sugesting there was at least a guy named Arthur that had men in his service.

@@kevinmurphy65 You're welcome Kevin. Well, Yes, that Arthur, the famous one, one has to put together all the mentions of Arthur and related material and note the locations at which they appear, the persons mentioned on the stone are contemporary with the Arthur we are referring to of the 6th century (also contemporary with Gildas the writer) Arthur-Son of Meurig , father of Morgan, to whom he gave the lands that his son named Glamorgan. Ogmore castle where the stone was found is a short march to Monis Baeden (Hill of the Boar /Hill of the challenge (Welsh baedd) Boar -one of Arthur's nicknames) Mount Baeden is where the famous battle took place. The roads and fields are named, in that area, according to the reports of the battle there, road to the tulmult, field of the battle. The author to study on this is Alan Wilson is research his the most detailed and extensive available, he has far surpassed the scholars and academics who cannot seem to make their minds up, they get stuck and then just cop out by saying 'it's a myth' Very strange bunch. The evidence for Arthur is extensive detailed and all available I have no idea why the utter negligence and laziness of the academics continues, he almost seems to pose some kind of threat, it's bizarre.

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat Exactly my point. Are there that many mentions outside the standard Arthurian canon that many either do not recognize or factor into the aspect of a "World of Arthur" and in most cases for good reason. History is after all and despite the laypersons opinion, a science, so it is still important to proceed as such, and that's the reason why academics are hung up on just stating what may just be the obvious answer. I would imagine on personal levels and discussions, many would give...mmmm...lets say posits that they think or believe, off the record, of course.

@@kevinmurphy65 I agree a scientific approach must be followed , but the historians keep getting it wrong(and boy are they vicious..)-The historian's 'Correction' of the Wiki article above is incorrect Arthyws is not 'Andres' -this was a different person and is clear in the original historical document, the Historian in the wiki article fails to point this very important fact out. The academics, Historians I find, to be perfectly honest -absolutely nuts. I am a complete beginner in this field yet I find it patently obvious that Arthur was a real historical figure. There is this crazy rule in the academic world that if they can't something clearly written in the records, when I say clear I mean like one would do for a five year old, it doesn't exist. They appear utterly confused and utterly glued into statements in old manuscripts which prove 'nothing really happened' And seem to my eyes very confused -they will not take an expansive look across various fields of data they are trapped in one discipline which is specialised and they go nowhere near any other field so they are denied a wide vista. They refuse outright any data that comes from 'outside' 'non university, curriculum approved' sources, they consider it not valid, just not admissible, only if they themselves find it -an 'approved' scholar finds it is it even partially looked at, and then it takes ten years before anyone of them dares talk about it, they are utterly terrified of ridicule by their own group and come down hard on anyone that speaks out of turn. If you are not part of their group and have peer reviewed papers you are not even remotely worthy of attention, you are considered a pitiful village idiot whose hanging is justified. They are so tied down in rules of how to verify something that they cannot declare a simple decision, they just can't make statements, (except of scathing ridicule)they refuse to take any responsibility for making a conclusion and they are terrified to research independently -what if their peers found out! They go round in circles disclaiming this and disclaiming that and never acknowledging the people that wrote the texts, it's weird, like they don't like people or something. It seems they don't really like history either as they seem so angry about it are constantly denying it and vicious towards the authors of old. I bet this sounds somewhat over the top, but that's what i have personally encountered.

Unfortunately that may be the case, the original bloodline appears to have been broken, the early English kings attested their Arthurian ancestry, that is all dropped now. And yes 'Prince of Wales' is a very odd title, as there were kings of Wales not Princes (Except when 'Princeps' was used and meant highest ruler, not prince) Wales had kings , and was made 'part of England' then part of the UK yet is not on the flag. One almighty mix up and confusion has occurred.

Indeed Ian! and the area of that part of S E wales was in the royal district of 'Kiburd' Which translates to 'together table' maybe I'll trace that one too.

I also wonder what became of the hill fort leaders when the country was occupied by the Romans, those leaders could well have become the quasi royalty, there are a large amount of hill forts in the surrounding areas, it never mentions King Arthur as being of Roman decent ,plus he would have to be acceptable to a large group of the populous.

Thank you Richard, much appreciated.

The Biker Bulldogs say thank you sir!

Yes the destruction of the language and thus the history is tragic. I watched that american guy on You Tube who does languages go to Cardiff recently, he was like -wow i'm gonna learn Welsh and go speak it with the locals! he found just two people who spoke it , everyone else could not and they felt ashamed that they couldn't speak their own language. It was a heart breaking revelation of what has been done to the nation its culture and history. I shall have to cover this topic at some stage because it has had a devastating effect on the true history of Great Britain.

​@@WhatMakesBritainGreat He should have gone West or North to find Welsh speakers.

@@twpsy634 Yes, even the peeps in cardiff mentioned that, there were a couple of fluent speakers he hung out with, and funny enough him being there speaking Welsh rehabilitated the desire to speak the language in those that knew a bit but couldnt speak it , was actually both a little sad but uplifting to see the resurgence. Future does actually look bright TBH

When I worked in Cardiff, people from the countryside called the Cardiff people The English!

Designed so that a dissociative disorder occurs and they will no longer defend their history. The Germanics love that the people calm themselves Welsh as all their ancient history will be using the term Briton and British. Definitely not the term “Welsh”. It effectively turns an ancient civilisation into a younger one.

Found at the bottom of the lime pit within the castle 1922 and removed, it is now an historical protected artifact, and actually only part of the actual artifact, it will have been larger possibly with a cross on top, taller in any case. A hugely important historical document now kept in St Fagan's museum Cardiff. It carries the man's name, as the king, granting land that is attested an agreed upon. The figures that the king granted land to are 6th century historical persons. (Arthur fl. 6th cent')

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat Well that certainly puts paid to the concept of Arthur being 'just a legend' !

@@veronicaroach3667 Yep, he was a real King and a very loved and feared one. The evidence of his existence is extensive detailed and full. When I started to look into this I had no idea about history but was surprised at all the ridicule and put downs of the records and historical figures, I came to think there's something wrong but couldn't believe it was being covered up, that was too much to believe, now I am certain that Arthur and many other figures are deliberately and forcefully destroyed and turned into myths. Recent events have proved it to me. The historians that led me here are Alan Wilson and barram Blackett --read their books and study their story. This history is being destroyed as we speak the stone i spoke of is actually hidden away and no one gets to see it, one of hundreds of vicious tricks the academic/establishment pulls on the public.

To be fair, after 400 years of Roman occupation most of the indigenous held parts of Britain were inhabited by Romano Britons. By which time we had learnt Latin & an appreciation of the Roman way of life. Of course the Brythonic tongue was still prevalent, especially further west in what is now Wales, Cornwall & Cumbria. But by the time the Roman's left many were sorry to see them leave & without the protection of their army the Britons felt very vulnerable to invasion from the Saxons in the East, the Irish in the West, & the Picts in the North.

If you believe that you probably believe in UFOs

Yes Alan Wilson was a genius. This channel which I have just started, is for my 'What Makes Britain great book' the biker bulldogs, is going to cover British achievements, when compiling info for the book I needed history definitions, data etc and despite reading through many articles no one seemed to be able to make a decision and state clearly : the origin of the term 'Britain' etc etc , I looked at the old records and thought wow! then discovered the historians and writers kept calling the ancient scholars fiction writers/fantasists etc ... No one would take any responsibility whatsoever, then I came across Alan Wilson's work. He spent his life doing the work for free that the historians , paid, should have done. This history of these islands is clearly important to the Brits so I started with these videos. Thanks for watching. :) Dave.

@@WhatMakesBritainGreat - this sums up what’s known about Arthur ua-cam.com/video/YUGcuqGczjs/v-deo.htmlsi=oZX093g-fkypUOr1

Thanks, I'd suggest anyone interested in King Arthur maybe read Holy Kingdom by A.Gilbert (and Wilson and Blackett) published 1998 by Bantam Press, then 1999 by Corgi Books)

his existence is well-documented in historical records including the Llandaff Charters. It is all available to read. The only myth is that he was a mythological character, or that he was not Welsh.

Quite untrue. In the world of actual historians the gold standard is contemporary sources…..things written while the events they describe were going on. And there are two references to Arthur in the Easter annals in one of the monasteries in the west of England. In these monks were in the habit of writing a short line or two at the end of each year as they recorded the dates that Easter had happened. The two Arthur references are separated by about 20 years. One records him described as a “Dux Bellorum”….maybe translate as “Field Marshal” ? sort of idea winning a battle at a place named as “Mons Badonicus”…unidentified but maybe Badon Hill in the West of England. In Dorset. The other Easter annal line simply tells us that he has been killed. And a man called “Modred” also named..All a bit thin but the period is referred to as the “Dark Ages” for a reason.

@@honissabeGood comment.

@@honissabe - this very neatly sums up what is actually known about “King Arthur” ua-cam.com/video/YUGcuqGczjs/v-deo.htmlsi=W_wmCp08eSWqpOs6

@@CobinRain Contemporary sources are the poems of Taliesin, and the Charters, the names of the lands, the various stone inscriptions. 'Actual historians' are lazy and want historical figures to turn up and show their passport to prove ID, even then they'll argue. There are enough references available to see that Arthur was real, the fact that he is the most famous king in history is a clue, people seem to ignore the obvious, it takes a study of the Welsh histories and what happened to the Welsh, and a proper understanding of the Welsh oral traditions, methods, exact recitals etc . His name mentioned in royal charters and that of his relations is clear as day, as is the genealogy (Even in Wiki) it astounds me that the historians aren't chasing down any other material when clearly this man is recorded and was known about and taught as bog standard history in Wales for more than a 200 years.

At least we have reference that Dubritius is the man who is named as crowning Arthur. (and is 6th century)

Well to be frank Conrad, there are hundreds of references to Arthur in historical Manuscripts there are copious mentions of his name and that of his brothers, father, grandfather etc across stones in Wales. There are also mentions of his relatives , father and many others in the King's charters which are available to view and yes he is mentioned in many early poems. Read the Kings of Britain by the Welsh Prince and bishop Tysilio of the 6th century he describes the adventures and life of Arthur and his fellows start with that. The early kings of England all acknowledged his existence and claimed heritance, they were not making things up or acting on a myth , they wanted to be king of all Britain as he was. Yes he was a real historical figure and it's about time we stopped this 'Myth' thing that has been going around.

@WhatMakesBritainGreat You are simply describing a successful myth. And the earliest English kings most certainly did not claim the ancestry of Arthur. Woden, more like. May I recommend to you The Cambridge History of Britain, Volume 1. Details available on Google, of course.

@@ConradAinger No, I am quoting history, not myth and the early English kings did claim they were descended from Arthur: King Henry II Claimed he was heir to Arthur --it is in the written records as a matter of documented fact. And he had thousands upon thousands come visit the 'bones' of Arthur, princes, nobility, bishops, farmers, tourists, scholars, and other Kings all visited-were they all mad? (It was a falsehood that he had the bones but the bones were a point , an item of huge power why would the King of England claim he was Arthur's heir and possessed his bones?) Why did the Britons -the Welsh talk of Arthur as their previous King? Are an entire people deluded? An entire country of people were insane? pretended they had a king who never existed? Why too did the English talk of Arthur as a previous king? are they too all deluded? and why was Henry afraid of another uprising from the Britons because of the memories of previous victories and rule of Arthur, when he was king of all Briton? And another English King Edward the 1st --exactly the same deal --He claimed he was just like Arthur. These are real events all recorded but clearly not in the Cambridge guide to history.

@WhatMakesBritainGreat That you regard Henry 2nd as an early English king is revealing. In conventional historical discourse early English King's are those of the Anglo-Saxons in the 5th and 6th centuries. Henry was a Norman king. He did not even speak English, and knew nothing of events 700 years earlier. His identification with 'Arthur' was simply a convention of the time. There are no contemporaneous references to Arthur. There are references in British ( Welsh or Celtic) literature to various figures. In Gildas, for instance. But not to Arthur. Nor does early English literature mention such an individual. Nor is there any archaeological evidence for Arthur. The earliest reference to him comes from Nennius, writing in the 8th. If there were any evidence then, believe me ( I am a history graduate), historians would accept it. Indeed they would be delighted to.

@@ConradAinger You are quite right Conrad, I should have not said 'English king' but 'king of England' which both Henry and Edward were. That doesn't change King Henry's statement. Nor does it change what the thousands of people at that time thought of Arthur and what the Welsh school curriculum was teaching for many years -so were the administrators that wrote the school history curriculum deluded? Were they making up figures from history? --if so I shall certainly throw away the 1908 Welsh history school book. In the 'History of Gwent' in the above book Arthur is listed as King of Gwent. (even wikipeadia lists him as King of Gwent) king Iddon is cited, he is a real 6th century figure, St Teilo, Dubritious, all real 6th cent'y people. And King Maelgwn again a real listed king. Arthur is mentioned in many other scripts yet no one seems in the slightest bothered and every script is dubbed 'Curious' and 'spurious' I'm speaking of the Annals of Wales in the British museum and St Tysilios MSS. I honestly am beginning to think people refuse to see what is in front of their face.

You are so very welcome. :)

The ‘Scoti’ were from Ireland, I believe. Read medieval history many years ago and recall the tutor pointing that out.

@@susanc4622 yes the scoti killed and displaced the welsh, the irish should be sent back to Spain. Then the scoti left Ireland attacked and killed the Picts. But they couldn't defeat the Angles of Scotland, the Northumbrians

So glad you enjoyed it Morgan. Yes! it was a spoken tradition, and a very involved and exact method far as I can see, of keeping history, telling tales of kings and events. That's why it's so important to keep it alive and pure if the ancient tales are to be kept as they've been passed down over centuries, something unique to Wales. You have just clarified something for me too. Which gives me an idea for another video. :)

''Avon'' was not a mispronunciation. Considering the settlements the Welsh speakers had all over Great Britain it is surprising so few remain today, Cumbria and Aberdeen to name a couple. But in many places the valleys and lowlands were wild and unused, it took the AngloSaxons and their superior farming methods to clear the forests, while the Welsh stayed on the hills. This can be seen in village names in places such as Somerset and Oxen. Sadly the Irish and English were too powerful and removed the Welsh culture.