That's a real treasure of a book you have there. Disappointed I can't find a copy available on the interwebs anywhere. Isn't it so cool to find something so interesting!
Love these old books!! You can try Abe books or other similiar places try amazon/e-bay too. have a good search and you'l find it. I have a feeling these books will get more and more popular and the originals will all get bought!
Like the indigenous children of North America, the Welsh children of the early 20thC were forbidden from speaking their native tongue at school. In Wales any kid found speaking Welsh could be "snitched on." The only way to avoid a beating on the friday was to snitch on another Welsh speaking child. Those who were the current targets for the beating had to wear a board around their neck like some bizarre necklace. It was known as "The Welsh Knot." At least the Welsh children got to go back to hearth & home at the end of the day. Native American children were forced into boarding schools.
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.
@@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
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.
Nice job. It is unsurprising that so many people believe what they have been told and do not / will not read and look at factual historical accounts. I hope your work helps to rid British History of its anti-welsh, pro-roman and saxon bs.
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.
Caerleon is indeed a fortress of Roman founding, at Caerleon, there is an amphitheater which is round, it takes little imagination to see this as a round table well able to accommodate a large force of Knights/warriors.
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.
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
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.
Treating Arthur as real. Wow. I found a book, by Stephen r. Lakehead, Arthur. It's the opposite of the 1400 stories, lancelot Camalot. It's the earlier 700 original story. This story has merlin, the fisher king, his mother's husband. Arthur, gweniviere, the others in the group. Their loyalty is lived, and profoundly felt. And at the end, the fisher kings castle, Arthur's abodes, in Avalon, disappeared, never to reappear again, after Arthur was seriously wounded. I cried. And cried. End of a good Era, in with the bad. ....I expect Avalon to reappear as we enter the 5th dimension. ..bit poetry, writ in new testament style.
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.
interesting. The to and fro of education in Edwardian and early post WW1 Wales is interesting. Some people were keen to start some sort of Welsh medium eduction (as all education was in English, even in Welsh speaking areas). Welsh was allowed as a medium to instruct and was, probably used widely in primary schools in Welsh speaking Wales with basically monolingual Welsh speaking kids but English was almost excusively the medium of instruction in high school even in Welsh speaking areas. At this time, a minority of Welsh educationalists are trying to get Welsh medium education used in Welsh speaking areas and also where there were still many Welsh speakers but the areas were becoming more anglicised e.g. Rhondda, Pontypridd. In light of this were also efforts to include Welsh history and culture in the curriculum, so, you'd see things like an annual school 'eisteddfod' (cultural competitions) even in English areas, and, also some Welsh history. So, it's complex and very much depended on the individual school and even teacher. But the prevailing forces by the 1930s was for British (i.e. English) conformity and only in the 1950s really did Welsh medium education start to take root. But it's very interesting and even surprising for me as a Welshman to see that a book like this was published by the authorities so early in the 20th century. Thanks for sharing. Much appreciated. PS - Iddon is pronounced with the Welsh 'dd' so, same sound as the 'th' in 'with' or 'together'.
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.
I agree that Welsh, and English and Scottish youngsters should be taught more about their own histories. But Arthur was not an historical figure. Historians have examined this matter closely. The whole thing comes from an epic Welsh poem written centuries after the supposed events. 'Though brave, he was not Arthur' - that is all it says.
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.
This is interesting, I am not British nor have any sort of kinship with the peoples of the isles however growing up in my country my grandparents would teach me many subjects and one of them was the history of my own people as well as the history of other peoples, they were both very well educated and could read in Latin, Greek, English, Portuguese and Spanish, when they taught me about the history of the British peoples and the isles of Great Britain and Ireland they spoke of Arthur as a real leader of the Celtic Romans who sought to defend the country of the Romanized celts from the Anglo Saxon invasions, the kingdom of Britain at that point could be described as an independent patchwork of petty kingdoms ruled by a “High King” who likely held to a Roman title, the western Roman Empire had basically abandoned the isles to defend its heartlands during the many barbaric invasions of that Time which created this state of affairs, my grandparents taught me history as it is on this book: later writers would expand the legend of this very successful and important Roman Celtic(Welsh) commander and this would give rise to a great poetic tradition known as the Arthurian legends or cycles, after Arthur’s death(or depart to Avalon I guess) the Germanic peoples would drive the romanized celts into the mountainous lands now known as Wales and most of the isle of Great Britain would become the realms of divided Anglo Saxon kingdoms who wore against each-other until the later Danish invasions in a later period of the Middle Ages.
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.
Of course also worth mentioning, Arthur was almost certainly a Latin as he is said to be a descendant of Ambrosius, the first Bishop of Milan. Perhaps even more surprisingly, his family line may exist to this very day! Now I do know that may sound like a bit of a stretch (and it is) but I have done a lot of research over the years and spent much time with these people and all I can say is that I am now absolutely convinced. They truly do have the mark of Arthur! (And yet, oddly enough, themselves seem to know nothing about him, nor English history for that matter.) Anyway, I will be glad to elaborate in case anyone is curious to hear more about this amazing "discovery".
@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.
Hi David, thanks for saying, that was my error, I mis-spoke and mixed up dates, I must have been thinking of something else. The incident I was referring to and should have mentioned was from 1847 - 'The Blue Book Reports' or the 'Treachery of the Blue Books' These were 3 blue coloured volumes published by the English Government's commissioners into the state of education in Wales and the Welsh. This resulted in the silencing of the Welsh language in schools and punishment should it be spoken. The reports were brutal. Some excerpts: p. 66, on the Welsh Language: "The Welsh language is a vast drawback to Wales, and a manifold barrier to the moral progress and commercial prosperity of the people. It is not easy to over-estimate its evil effects." The Welsh were characterised as: 'dirty, ignorant, lazy, and immoral.' After this report reforms began: Pupils that were heard speaking Welsh were handed a wooden block a Welsh 'Not' as it was called , it was worn around their neck as punishment and shame for speaking such. The 'not' was handed on to the next child that spoke Welsh and at the end of the day whoever had the not received a beating. The central point I was trying to make is that the Welsh language holds the history (Traditionally passed down orally) and the destruction of it is the destruction of history and this contains the true history of king Arthur and the ancient British line of kings. I will have to take a look into it and maybe put together a video documenting this.
a lot of this 'information' must come from Bede and the AngloSaxon chronicles, there is so much we don't know. And to say that the Scots attacked Welsh land in the 6th century from Ireland seems odd, i have never heard that before, the Scots would have attacked Strathclyde and Cumbria from Scotland, which is why the Welsh wanted English mercenaries to crush the Scots.
@@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
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.
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)
Great video, today I've learnt something. My grandfather's first language was Welsh but later as you have stated that language was almost eradicated by the English. I too would like a copy of that book. As the old Celtic was spoken and not a written language the Bards would have told long tales around the fires in halls and campfires long before Geoffrey of Monmouth put pen to paper, shame they were lost. It always amazes me that the historians haven't considered why there are river Avons in England as the name for river in Welsh is afon. You don't need to be a mastermind candidate to see the connection. The area around the Bristol Avon was only taken by the AngloSaxons after a battle in 577AD probably 50 years or more after the legendary battle of Mons Badonicus which Arthur destroyed the Saxon army. You can almost hear a psychopathic Celtic warlord telling the defeated Saxon leader that if they crossed to Afon (Avon after years of mispronunciation and spelling) there would be trouble.
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.
King Arthur was real, a cymro. The english mornarchy know it, they all have Arthur as a middle name. The cover up is very deep and began with the romans. Our real history goes back thousands of years. Wales is a slur, which means foreignor. The name for Cymru is various other latin derrived languages is the land of the gauls. Much to share, tywysog dw i. Y gwir yn erbyn y byd. Heddwch â bendithion
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. ✝️🕊️
Pavlov's Dog ok let's Play A Game..what 🖼️ cometh to mind when u hear a Word.."Camelot" Monty Python? "Avalon" 😎 Songs about 💕 n Hope. Imagine how much Darker the Ages . without such 🌞 songs+1 ❤️
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.
@@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.
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
That's a real treasure of a book you have there. Disappointed I can't find a copy available on the interwebs anywhere. Isn't it so cool to find something so interesting!
You will never find a copy unless you find a very old book shop .. that book was secretly banned many years ago
Love these old books!! You can try Abe books or other similiar places try amazon/e-bay too. have a good search and you'l find it. I have a feeling these books will get more and more popular and the originals will all get bought!
Definitely due for a reprint but guard any existing copies like the Holy Grail. 🍷❤
Like the indigenous children of North America, the Welsh children of the early 20thC were forbidden from speaking their native tongue at school. In Wales any kid found speaking Welsh could be "snitched on." The only way to avoid a beating on the friday was to snitch on another Welsh speaking child. Those who were the current targets for the beating had to wear a board around their neck like some bizarre necklace. It was known as "The Welsh Knot." At least the Welsh children got to go back to hearth & home at the end of the day. Native American children were forced into boarding schools.
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.
As a seeker of Brythonic truths I value your review of this previously (to me) unknown gem. Cheers Biker Bulldogs.
The Biker Bulldogs say thank you sir!
Nice job. It is unsurprising that so many people believe what they have been told and do not / will not read and look at factual historical accounts. I hope your work helps to rid British History of its anti-welsh, pro-roman and saxon bs.
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.
Caerleon is indeed a fortress of Roman founding, at Caerleon, there is an amphitheater which is round, it takes little imagination to see this as a round table well able to accommodate a large force of Knights/warriors.
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.
Amazing find. and great video thank you!
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
Really interesting, thank you
Thanks John, appreciate that, please read comment reply above to correct my date error spoken in the video.
I heard someone claim that the round table is a symbol of the legendary King Arthur's philosophy of equality rather than an actual round table.
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.
Thanks, that was great! 👍
Ronald, you are very welcome! Dave.
Treating Arthur as real. Wow. I found a book, by Stephen r. Lakehead, Arthur. It's the opposite of the 1400 stories, lancelot Camalot. It's the earlier 700 original story. This story has merlin, the fisher king, his mother's husband. Arthur, gweniviere, the others in the group. Their loyalty is lived, and profoundly felt. And at the end, the fisher kings castle, Arthur's abodes, in Avalon, disappeared, never to reappear again, after Arthur was seriously wounded. I cried. And cried. End of a good Era, in with the bad. ....I expect Avalon to reappear as we enter the 5th dimension. ..bit poetry, writ in new testament style.
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. :)
I was never taught about king arthur in school. it was considered a fantasy.
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.
interesting. The to and fro of education in Edwardian and early post WW1 Wales is interesting. Some people were keen to start some sort of Welsh medium eduction (as all education was in English, even in Welsh speaking areas). Welsh was allowed as a medium to instruct and was, probably used widely in primary schools in Welsh speaking Wales with basically monolingual Welsh speaking kids but English was almost excusively the medium of instruction in high school even in Welsh speaking areas.
At this time, a minority of Welsh educationalists are trying to get Welsh medium education used in Welsh speaking areas and also where there were still many Welsh speakers but the areas were becoming more anglicised e.g. Rhondda, Pontypridd.
In light of this were also efforts to include Welsh history and culture in the curriculum, so, you'd see things like an annual school 'eisteddfod' (cultural competitions) even in English areas, and, also some Welsh history.
So, it's complex and very much depended on the individual school and even teacher. But the prevailing forces by the 1930s was for British (i.e. English) conformity and only in the 1950s really did Welsh medium education start to take root.
But it's very interesting and even surprising for me as a Welshman to see that a book like this was published by the authorities so early in the 20th century. Thanks for sharing. Much appreciated.
PS - Iddon is pronounced with the Welsh 'dd' so, same sound as the 'th' in 'with' or 'together'.
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.
I'd be very wary of any book which called Dyfrig Dubritius, or made him a Bishop of Caerleon (not impossible, but he was from Ergyng).
At least we have reference that Dubritius is the man who is named as crowning Arthur. (and is 6th century)
I agree that Welsh, and English and Scottish youngsters should be taught more about their own histories. But Arthur was not an historical figure. Historians have examined this matter closely. The whole thing comes from an epic Welsh poem written centuries after the supposed events. 'Though brave, he was not Arthur' - that is all it says.
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.
Cheers mate
Pleasure Wayne. :)
This is interesting, I am not British nor have any sort of kinship with the peoples of the isles however growing up in my country my grandparents would teach me many subjects and one of them was the history of my own people as well as the history of other peoples, they were both very well educated and could read in Latin, Greek, English, Portuguese and Spanish, when they taught me about the history of the British peoples and the isles of Great Britain and Ireland they spoke of Arthur as a real leader of the Celtic Romans who sought to defend the country of the Romanized celts from the Anglo Saxon invasions, the kingdom of Britain at that point could be described as an independent patchwork of petty kingdoms ruled by a “High King” who likely held to a Roman title, the western Roman Empire had basically abandoned the isles to defend its heartlands during the many barbaric invasions of that Time which created this state of affairs, my grandparents taught me history as it is on this book: later writers would expand the legend of this very successful and important Roman Celtic(Welsh) commander and this would give rise to a great poetic tradition known as the Arthurian legends or cycles, after Arthur’s death(or depart to Avalon I guess) the Germanic peoples would drive the romanized celts into the mountainous lands now known as Wales and most of the isle of Great Britain would become the realms of divided Anglo Saxon kingdoms who wore against each-other until the later Danish invasions in a later period of the Middle Ages.
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.
Of course also worth mentioning, Arthur was almost certainly a Latin as he is said to be a descendant of Ambrosius, the first Bishop of Milan.
Perhaps even more surprisingly, his family line may exist to this very day! Now I do know that may sound like a bit of a stretch (and it is) but I have done a lot of research over the years and spent much time with these people and all I can say is that I am now absolutely convinced. They truly do have the mark of Arthur! (And yet, oddly enough, themselves seem to know nothing about him, nor English history for that matter.) Anyway, I will be glad to elaborate in case anyone is curious to hear more about this amazing "discovery".
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.
Not sure where the idea comes from that Welsh teachers were replaced by English teachers (in 1922?)
Hi David, thanks for saying, that was my error, I mis-spoke and mixed up dates, I must have been thinking of something else. The incident I was referring to and should have mentioned was from 1847 - 'The Blue Book Reports' or the 'Treachery of the Blue Books' These were 3 blue coloured volumes published by the English Government's commissioners into the state of education in Wales and the Welsh. This resulted in the silencing of the Welsh language in schools and punishment should it be spoken. The reports were brutal. Some excerpts: p. 66, on the Welsh Language: "The Welsh language is a vast drawback to Wales, and a manifold barrier to the moral progress and commercial prosperity of the people. It is not easy to over-estimate its evil effects." The Welsh were characterised as: 'dirty, ignorant, lazy, and immoral.' After this report reforms began: Pupils that were heard speaking Welsh were handed a wooden block a Welsh 'Not' as it was called , it was worn around their neck as punishment and shame for speaking such. The 'not' was handed on to the next child that spoke Welsh and at the end of the day whoever had the not received a beating. The central point I was trying to make is that the Welsh language holds the history (Traditionally passed down orally) and the destruction of it is the destruction of history and this contains the true history of king Arthur and the ancient British line of kings. I will have to take a look into it and maybe put together a video documenting this.
@@WhatMakesBritainGreat -are you Welsh and speak Welsh?
@@davidcooke8059 No, born, raised in London. Why do you ask?
@@WhatMakesBritainGreat - because you’re saying that Welsh history has been wiped out. Seems an odd thing to say if you’re English
Brad y Llyfrau Gleision.
a lot of this 'information' must come from Bede and the AngloSaxon chronicles, there is so much we don't know. And to say that the Scots attacked Welsh land in the 6th century from Ireland seems odd, i have never heard that before, the Scots would have attacked Strathclyde and Cumbria from Scotland, which is why the Welsh wanted English mercenaries to crush the Scots.
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
Baram Blackett and Alan Wilson have researched this extensively.
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)
Great video, today I've learnt something. My grandfather's first language was Welsh but later as you have stated that language was almost eradicated by the English. I too would like a copy of that book.
As the old Celtic was spoken and not a written language the Bards would have told long tales around the fires in halls and campfires long before Geoffrey of Monmouth put pen to paper, shame they were lost.
It always amazes me that the historians haven't considered why there are river Avons in England as the name for river in Welsh is afon. You don't need to be a mastermind candidate to see the connection. The area around the Bristol Avon was only taken by the AngloSaxons after a battle in 577AD probably 50 years or more after the legendary battle of Mons Badonicus which Arthur destroyed the Saxon army. You can almost hear a psychopathic Celtic warlord telling the defeated Saxon leader that if they crossed to Afon (Avon after years of mispronunciation and spelling) there would be trouble.
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.
King Arthur was real, a cymro.
The english mornarchy know it, they all have Arthur as a middle name.
The cover up is very deep and began with the romans.
Our real history goes back thousands of years.
Wales is a slur, which means foreignor.
The name for Cymru is various other latin derrived languages is the land of the gauls.
Much to share, tywysog dw i.
Y gwir yn erbyn y byd.
Heddwch â bendithion
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
You REALLY need a wind muff on your mic, even a small piece of foam rubber will work.
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.
Pavlov's Dog ok let's Play A Game..what 🖼️ cometh to mind when u hear a Word.."Camelot" Monty Python? "Avalon" 😎 Songs about 💕 n Hope. Imagine how much Darker the Ages . without such 🌞 songs+1 ❤️
I knew he had to be a Welchman.
Yep--King of Glamorgan and Gwent ! High king of Briton.
nobody, certainly not the Welsh use the word Welch. It is more offensive than saying Welsh
Never was proven so just another British myth the make believe king Arthur was as real as Sherlock Holmes 😂😂
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.