Post by Peter on Apr 26, 2020 9:02:34 GMT
Kings of Britain
by Alan Hassell
©copyright all rights reserved 1/2/2004
There is nothing more frustrating than picking up any historical book about Britain and reading nothing more than Roman crap and bullshit. When it comes to British history some have a great failing in as much as nothing happened before the Romans arrived. No one really lived here according To some historians and academics except a few tribes called Celts.
The thing is when it comes to British History, producer of a popular archaeological program knows absolutely nothing about British History or the Kings that Ruled the country long before the Romans came.
Why is it that whenever they are on one of these digs and they come across an old church they automatically assumes that it is either Roman or Anglo Saxon?
On Sunday January the 25th 2004 they aired a program digging up skeletons.
Anglo Saxon women were noted as being small yet they came across a woman who at first they believed to be 6 foot tall and buried with a shield and a dagger.
Automatically they assume she was and Anglo Saxon, not even considering that she could have been British and was maybe part of the Boadacea rebellion. Did they do forensic tests on the actual bones they found? Maybe they didn't even do a carbon 14 test to find out the age of the bones.
I very much doubt it. I cant say for sure myself, but Boadacea did poison herself or used an adder to strike the final blow after being defeated by the Romans in her last battle that almost destroyed the entire Roman army in Britain.
Whist Boadacea and her followers might not have had the discipline and training of the Roman Army she was to become known as the first female freedom fighter.
The fact is no one has ever found her grave. The so called scientists don't even know themselves without doing carbon 14 tests on the bones and taking DNA samples and testing them whether the body was British or Anglo Saxon. Why oh why do they always jump to conclusions on wild assumptions without positive proof?
The way old Baldrick (Tony Robinson) carries on one would think he is the worlds leading authority on BULLDUST because that is how it all comes across to me and as long as they are making money Who gives a toss anyway.
Although the production crew do attempt to project the digs they do honestly, when it comes to anything pre-roman they result to guesswork, which is not factual and in fact very damaging.
We are presented with the simple question as to why a two thousand year recorded history has been so pointedly ignored by modern scholars. Why is it that the history of Britain is an entirely blank page before the year 55 BC in any conventional modern history book when such an easily accessible and informative record is at hand?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Britons traced their ancestry in these pre-Christian records back to patriarchs that are known to us from the Genesis record but of whom the Britons should have known nothing in their pre-Christian culture if what the modernists have always told us was true?
Why is it that they fail to recognize the true Britain's who lived here long before the Romans arrived were in fact practicing Christians that had there own churches and places of worship?
They know that the British were here and were practicing Christianity, but will never admit it, why? They also are well aware that St. Augustine wasn't the first person to start Christianity in Britain and Europe in AD 600.
Lets, go back in time a little and see if this makes sense the way it should be.
We know that Jesus was crucified on the cross. Mel Gibson, spent much of his own money creating a film about the last hours of Jesus. He goes onto show the brutality of how the Romans in their lust for blood put Jesus through excruciating pain and suffering before finally nailing him to the cross.
The Roman's in fact were a bunch of cruel tyrants, they put unarmed Christians into an arena to be eaten alive by lions. This spectacle was watched by the thousands that had gathered there to witness the brutality.
Joseph claimed the body of Christ, seven hours later when he was presumed and declared dead.
The Roman's let Joseph have the body for burial and then according to legend he buried his body in a cave.
Three days after that the body of Jesus had disappeared into thin air.
Or had it? Maybe just maybe he wasn't dead but badly injured and on the verge of dying when taken down from the cross. Then he was whisked away together with some of his disciples and followers and secreted to Britain of all places.
Now Joseph was none other than Joseph of Arimathea, a very rich merchant who dealt in metals amongst other things.
He could bribe people to keep their mouths shut about certain things and getting Jesus and his companions out of the country would have been a difficult but not impossible task.
Fortunately, Joseph had a really good ally on his side, one who had a lot of power and who was sympathetic towards him and his cause. This person was none other than King Caradoc, who's daughter or wife Eurgain had attending one of the sermons Jesus gave.
Eurgain, the daughter of Caradoc told her father of the wondrous things Jesus spoke about and was so impressed that she persuaded her father to give him and his follower's shelter in a safe haven, Britain.
One of the very first churches is the famous Llandaff Cathedral situated in Wales. There are many others there too, like the Cor Emrys St. Peters church on Caer Caradoc in Wales. Glastonbury, was not the location of one of the first churches in Somerset. The true Glastonbury, is situated in the midlands owing to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the old records. A more detailed account of this can be found in, The Holy Kingdom" by Adrian Gilbert, Alan Wilson & Baram Blackett.
Once they arrived in Britain, they immediately started to build churches and places of worship and so Christianity was born in Britain. This was over 500 years before St. Augustine had even thought about starting religion in Britain. It is believed that the changeover to Christianity was compulsory and so was attendance to a church.
So the stories perpetuated by the Anglo Saxons and their so called starting Christianity into Britain is a load of hogwash, bulldust and lies, the same lies and frogspawn that Time Team would like us all to believe when they make unsubstantiated claims about church ruins discovered on their so called digs.
Nennius tells us quite plainly that Christianity was introduced into Britain in AD 35 or 36. Why can't that be accepted by these so-called academics? Do they not read Nennius or the Triads or is it beyond their comprehension.
Yet here we have Academics, so called educated individuals denying that Christianity existed long before the roman's arrived. And you might wonder what they are teaching your children, that you are paying a high price for their education.
If you were a student? Would you want your child to be taught the truth or a pack of lies and bullshit?
Well; that's what they are being taught now, believe it or not. And if Tony Blair has anything to do with it students will be thousands of pounds in debt by the time they graduate and start paying the debt owed to the British Government for their so called Bullshit education.
Now, let us move on, We have all heard stories about Vortigren inviting the Anglo Saxon's over to Britain to act as mercenaries to fight the picts and Scots who were causing problems north of the border.
Hengist and Horsa were granted lands by King Vortigren against the wishes of his fellow Britain's.
Once the fighting was over Vortigren had no need for the Anglo Saxons and war broke out.
Eventually, there was a peace conference to be held. It was agreed by both parties that no weapons would be taken to the gathering.
The Britain's observed this like fools and went unarmed to their doom, for the despicable Saxons hid their long knives in their boots and once much ale had been drunk, on a given word the Saxons used the knives to kill 386 British Nobles who were present at the Peace conference.
This event became known as the night of the long swords and was told to every new generation in Wales, where the incident occurred. There is a monument there, which has been allowed to go into ruin to hide this infamous event.
Did I say monument, hmmmm, sorry that monument happens to be an ordnance survey marker dumped directly over the burial mound by the Welsh Authorities in an attempt to hide and destroy one of Britain/s most infamous deeds perpetrated by the Anglo Saxons.
To my way of thinking it offended someone in authority with English blood running through his veins that he felt insulted by the reminder and decided to eliminate it by desecration and destruction. One thing the authorities cannot do is erase the memory of such an event and never will.
Vortigren only escaped with his life because he had married Rowena the daughter of Hengist although he was offered for ransom first. When this was refused they set him free.
One person managed to escape and when Emrys Wledig (Ambrosias Aurelianus) learnt about the treachery he immediately returned from Brittany and gathered an army together and went in pursuit of Hengist and Horsa.
Hengist was caught and killed; his brother Horsa and the rest of his band of butchers were spared and given land in Scotland.
When I went through school myself, I was taught that Caesar was the first Roman to conquer Britain such was the knowledge of my teachers. Teachers are only passing on the same old crap today, as they were when I was educated.
Fortunately, I was taught to read and write and find out things for myself and make my own decisions about certain things.
If the truth were really known about Caesar, far from being the conquering hero that many considered him to be both his attempts in AD 55 and AD 54 to gain a stronghold in Britain were in fact miserable failures and total disasters.
Caesar had just conquered Gaul after a campaign that lasted about two years. Having achieved that quite successfully he then set his sites on Britain.
Caesar was well aware of the mineral wealth of Britain in the form of metals such as tin, lead, copper, silver and gold. Then there was the produce which he considered to be worthy of adding to the Roman Empire's wealth.
Alan Wilson told me that according to Welsh histories there was an exchange of letters between Caesar and the British King Cassivellaunus (leader of the Catevellauni) otherwise known as Caswallon who was a brother to King Llud. King Llud was the high king of the north Thames area of Britain. Caesar demanded that Caswallon submit Britain to Roman rule and also pay a tribute to prevent the spilling of blood.
Caswallon replied to Caesars letter stating that he was astonished by the Avarice of the Romans to even attempt to take Britain by force and should they be invaded the British would put up a fight till the death. Or words to that effect.
Caesar was under the impression the Britain's knew nothing of war and the production of weapons and would be easy subjects to subdue. Caesar with the victory over the Gaul's under his belt was eager for another great victory to impress the Senate once he returned to Rome.
Although, the British Kings often fought amongst themselves over territorial disputes when it came to battles with intruders such as Julius Caesar these tribes would unite and join forces exactly the same as they did during the Boadacea rebellion.
The main reason for this is because they all had one thing in common, their original birth right and heritage. They all originated from the same area and were known as the Kymry.
Once the kings or leaders of the various tribes were gathered to discuss how they would handle the situation they would elect a Pendragon or leader who would lead them into battle. The person selected was Cassivellaunus (Casswallon). King Arthur many years later would follow Caswallon's example and do exactly the same by joining forces with other kings from their own kingdoms to stop the Anglo Saxons in several battles.
Caesar had sent one of his trusted officers, Caius Volusenus to scout the shoreline of Briton. He returned to Portus Itius (Boulogne) after five days of reconnoitering and then guided the Legions across the Channel to their landing sight.
So it appears that Caesar arrived off the south coast of Britain in ships with as many as 12,000 men in his army.
Caesars ships came unstuck with either the shallow water or low tides because he was unable top get his ships close to shore to unload his men. With his ships grounded, the Britons on horseback were able to pick off the Romans game enough to enter the water. Finally a standard bearer took the plunge and the legionnaires followed. Caesar is believed to have lost many men fighting his way off the beaches.
What Caesar hadn't counted on was the fact that Caswallon was not only familiar with the modern tactics of Legionary warfare but had something the Roman's never expected to see Chariots and Caswallon's guerrilla style of hit and run warfare.
The fighting that took place on the beaches was such that Caesar had to return to his ships twice and the spillage of blood on both sides was such that it stained the gray sea giving it a purple look.
Caesar writes, In chariot fighting the Britons begin by driving all over the field hurling javelins, and generally inspired by the horses and the noise of the wheels are sufficient to thrown their opponents ranks in disorder.
Then after making their way between the squadrons of their own cavalry, they jump down from their chariots and engage on foot. In the meantime their charioteer retire a short distance from the battle and place the chariots in such position that their masters, if hard pressed by numbers, have every means to retreat to their own lines.
Why cant these so called historians and film researchers with all this information staring them in the face put two and two together are they incapable of thinking?
The British always favored hills and high places in which they preferred to do battle. Whilst it would be no effort for a horse to gallop up a hill at full speed, the roman foot soldier or infantry would find it hard going. One can imagine, guerrilla type attacks from hills hitting the rear and flanks of Caesars columns, throwing them into total disarray and reducing the Roman numbers considerably.
Once they broke off the engagement the Roman's would follow then up the steep inclines exhausting themselves in the process. Once they reached a certain level Caswallon's men watching and resting from the top of the hill would charge forward together with the chariots to further confuse the Romans, throwing them into retreat for fear the chariots would inflict serious injury to them.
Caesar was totally unprepared for this type of warfare and he glossed over events. He also lied about the way the Briton's dressed comparing them to the Gaul's who he described as being naked and painting their bodies in woad.
When it comes to matters regarding Caesar, it is far more reliable to turn to Strabo the Greek geographer who writes: 'He came not clad in skins like a Seythian, but with a bow in his hand, a quiver hanging on his shoulders, a plaid wrapped about his body, a gilded belt encircling his loins, and trousers reaching from the waist down to the soles of his feet. He was easy in his address; agreeable in his conversation; active in his dispatch, and secret in the management of great affairs; quick in judging of present accuracies; and ready to take part in any sudden emergency: provident withal in guarding against futurity: diligent in the quest for wisdom: fond of friendship: trusting little to fortune, yet having the entire confidence of others, and trusted with everything for his prudence. He spoke Greek with a fluency, that you would have thought he had been bred up in the Lyceum, and conversed all his life in the Academy of Athens.
Strabo, it appears gives a far more honest description of the British not only in their fashion of dress but also of their intelligence and prudence in all matters. Caesar had far more to lose than his credibility if the real truth about events were to be known in Rome.
Caswallon's youngest brother, Nennius (Nynnyaw), fought hand to hand with Julius Caesar on the invasion of Britain in the year 55 BC. The Romans had been trying to set up camp in the Thames estuary when the Britons fell upon Caesar's 10th Legion by surprise and attacked them.
During the battle in which hand-to-hand fighting took place Caesar thrust his sword into the shield of Nennius who had attacked them and was unable to extract it. This was because some shields were made of numerous layers of hide that when stretched tight a weapon such as a sword might be able to penetrate it but extraction would prove to be very difficult.
Although other soldiers forced Nennius away from Caesar, he did manage to capture the emperor's sword. Nennius although wounded in the conflict managed to escape together with Caesar's sword but he died of his wounds fifteen days later and was buried beside the northern entrance to Trinovantum (modern Bishops gate in London?); some say that he was buried where the Tower of London now stands or Bryn Gwyn.
Thus they combine the mobility of cavalry with the staying power of infantry: and by daily training and practice they attain such proficiency that even on a steep incline they are able to control the horses at full gallop, and to check and turn them at a moment. They can run along the chariot pole, stand on the yoke, and get back in the chariot as quick as lightning.
This tells us a lot about what Caswallon and the early Briton's were capable of with their chariots. It also tells us the early Briton's were able to throw Caesars well-trained infantry into complete and utter disarray once they bought the chariots into use. It must also be remembered, that many of those chariots had iron swords or other devices attached to the hub of the wheels.
Not only would the wheels inflict serious injuries to anyone hapless enough to come into contact with the wheels or swords but it would have had a terrifying effect on Caesars army once a few charges had been made between Caesars ranks. Not only were they confronting with a horse galloping at full speed but they also had to contend with getting out of the way of the weapons on the wheels or face serious injury if not death.
It is very strange that although mention is made in many documented accounts that British chariots did use such devices to inflict damage on the invaders, when they made the film about Boadacea, the producers of the film failed to show them in the film although they were shown and used in the film Ben Hur with the fantastic chariot race scenes.
Sounds like double standards were being used here to show the Briton's in a poor light. The actual chariot replica made and used in the film is now on display at the British Museum.
It would also be wasteful to send out a chariot driven by one man with a solitary spear to throw at the enemy. Two maybe three people would have been on a chariot one or two archers and the driver. One only needs to look at murals from ancient Syria in the British Museum to realize that this is how they fought in battle with such weapons.
This sword was considered a great trophy, and was paraded before large crowds and put on show for all to see in London after Caesars departure. If you look closely at the Coat of Arms of the City of London in the top left hand quadrant of the shield, Caesars sword is still there for all to see and is still being used as a form of insignia as it has right through the centuries.
The sword remained in Britain for many years, at one stage it was even thought to have been 'Excalibur' the sword that King Arthur used. Eventually, it mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again.
There are numerous stories about the sword and one of them suggests that Constantine took possession of the sword and it was never seen again.
There were two kings who might have caused its loss. The first could have been King John who is supposed to have lost his whole treasure wagon in the notorious wash at King's Lynn.
The Second could have been the Parliamentarians who sold off King Charles the First treasures to whoever was willing to pay the price after his execution. Much of his treasure was purchased by France and maybe still there.
However, the sword recently turned up in America of all places. How it got there I'm not sure and not prepared to hazard a guess.
Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett have seen the sword in person. It was made with words built into it, which state,' whoever holds this sword commands the army.' Or words to that effect.
Apart from the shield part of the city of London's coat of arms on the full coat of arms there are other more mysterious things that few people know about. For example situated either side of the shield are two dragons representing the associations with Pendragon and King Arthur.
Directly above the shield we see King Arthur's helmet, the cross in the middle of the shield is what is referred today as the cross of St. George. Even this is misunderstood for is this not the cross that Arthur is documented as having carried in some of his major battles and also when he donated land to Llandaff Cathedral as written in the Llandaff Charters?
As the Romans advanced, farmers would move their cattle further away from the Roman forces and drove them into the forests where they couldn't be seen. Caesars, supply lines at the rear were constantly being attacked depriving Caesar and his men of much needed food and essential supplies.
Caesar, might have fought many battles and skirmishes along the River Thames and may even crossed over to the north side of it but he knew very little of the inhabitants or the real Briton's.
A major battle took place at the Isle of Thorns which is approximately where the houses of parliament, Westminster are now. That was one on the few places that could be crossed as there was a ford there at one stage.
Archaeologists tell us that there were fordable places Battersea too, which will be of special interest later.
Just by the houses of parliament there is a large statue of Boadacea on her chariot together with her daughters. It is a really remarkable statue. Now, try to imagine 4,000 or more of those things being lined up along the banks of the River Thames with Caesar and his 12,000 infantry pondering how they are going to overcome such a force?
Caesar writes: I noticed large enemy forces drawn up on the opposite bank. The bank had also been fortified with sharp stakes fixed along it, and, as I discovered from prisoners and deserters, similar stakes had been driven into the riverbed and were concealed beneath the water.
Cassivellaunus disbanded some of his forces, said to be in excess of 30,000, keeping some 4,000 charioteers with whom he kept a close watch on the line of March. He kept his men some distance from the main marching legionnaires and in doing so was able to follow the Roman advance.
They concealed themselves in the woods and thickets, and when they discovered the areas through which we should be marching, they drove the inhabitants and their cattle out of the fields and into the woods. Then, whenever our cavalry had ventured any distance into the fields to get plunder or devastate the country, they sent these charioteers out of the woods by every road and track to attack them.
Notice the word road was used in this old document. The Roman's were walking along British built roads and knew of their existence. Not all roads built in Britain were built by the Roman's although later they might have added to what was already there and improved upon them. The British did have their own roads and they also had transport even if it was chariots.
Caesar's men were in great danger from such clashes, and fear of them prevented them from ranging far a field. The result was that Caesar could not allow the cavalry to go any distance from the main column of infantry; thus the damage our cavalry could inflict on the Britons by burning and ravaging their land was limited by the capacity of our infantry, when they were tired from strenuous marching, to give them protection.
Caesar appears to know of only one ford, while archaeologist has located a number of possible fords: at Westminster, Battersea, and Vauxhall. This suggests that the Roman forces were deliberately fed disinformation in order to make them attempt their crossing at the most heavily defended point.
It also suggests that the boundary of the territory of Cassivellaunus (leader of the Catevellauni) was along the Thames. What few people knew at the time was Cassivellaunus was the brother King Llud who had established Trinovantanium, which would have been clearly visible from the South bank of the River Thames. Strangely, there is no mention of it being seen despite being situated so close to the river.
However, a simple explanation is that as Trinovantanium was situated some distance to the east, Caesar and his forces might not have seen it as their journey would have been from southeast to northwest. One must also remember that the River Thames was much wider then than it is today.
Much of it would have been flood plain with tree's either side of the River, which would have obscured the view of what was behind the trees. There were no tall buildings in those days in which anyone could get a birds eye view from the south bank of the River Thames as there are today.
A column especially when tired of marching pays little attention to what is ahead, they are more concerned about kicking the bloke in front of them should they break out of step as sometimes happens in the military.
The tactics that the British adopted appear to have inflicted real damage on the Romans, and reflect rather better on the British that classical sources normally suggest. Although the Romans may have been able to win one or two engagements at Cassivellaunus stronghold, the Romans left Britain, and did not return for 90 years.
The geographer Strabo states,'The deified Caesar crossed over twice to the island, but came back in haste, without accomplishing much or proceeding very far inland'. Caesar described the early Briton's as being naked and using woad to dye their bodies blue. One wonders if Caesar actually came to Britain if he couldn't describe the dress of the locals.
The Roman poet Lucan confirms the defeat and humiliation of the Romans; "In haste he turned and showed his back to the British he had attacked."
Nennius on the other hand writes a more interesting story. 19. The Romans having obtained the dominion of the world, sent legates or deputies to the Britons to demand of them hostages and tribute, which they received from all other countries and islands; but they, fierce, disdainful, and haughty, treated the legation with contempt.
Then Julius Caesar, the first who had acquired absolute power at Rome, highly incensed against the Britons, sailed with sixty vessels to the mouth of the Thames, where they suffered shipwreck whilst he fought against Dolobellus, (the proconsul of the British king, and thus Julius Caesar returned home without victory, having had his soldiers slain, and his ships shattered.
In those days a battle would be fought during the day and they would collect their dead and bury them during the night. It was more like something out of a Looney tunes cartoon where Wiley Coyote would clock on in the morning for his shift while Ralph the devoted watch dog would stand guard over the flock of sheep during the day only to clock off at night fall.
In Ludgate Circus there used to be a large statue of King Llud and his two sons. They are dressed and one of the sons, believed to be Tenuantius appears to be wearing body Armour as well. This statue alone proves that the British people were not naked but dressed, highly intelligent well-educated individuals and well prepared for going into battle.
There is a better print of the statues at Guildhall, in that all three are shown wearing swords behind them. Which proves beyond doubt they were well armed and prepared for battle.
Caesar would have sent out scouting parties looking for other possible places upstream in which they might be able to cross the Thames. Once they were halfway across, the British would attack them at their most vulnerable point where they would be forced to retreat. There is no reason to suspect that he didn't, because there is tangible evidence that he did.
Fortunately, the British Museum is the largest storehouse of treasures in Britain. Inside, there are number of iron age shields that have been recovered from the Thames together with many other objects such as axes, spears and daggers.
According to members of the staff at the museum state that, 'many of these have been associated with votive offerings to the gods by the Celts.'
Votive offerings to the Gods, such is the education of the people that work in museums that they consider the British to be Celts. Have they learnt nothing, The Britain's were derived from Brutas, they were descendants who originally occupied Britain from Troy. They were in fact Trojans but were Christians as Nennius declares and writes about them converting to Christianity in AD 35 ' 36. Even the Pope the highest religious person in the world recognizes that the British were the First Christians.
Weapons were highly sought after and highly prized items in those days. They were expensive items too and those that had them would not leave them out of their sight and would even sleep with them. The only time a warrior would give up his weapons was when he was injured or killed in Battle.
Looking at the intricate designs on the shields and similarities the designs it is quite conceivable that the markings could have been a form of insignia of certain tribes and rank of high standing individuals either way these shields look nothing like the easily recognizable shields the Romans used indicating that these shields were British.
Votive offerings to the gods is a feeble excuse to escape the real truth that a Battle had taken place. It was only when the fight was over that bodies would have been retrieved, but the weapons submerged in water and mud would remain there until such time as they were found again.
Such is the case of the many weapons, shields, knives, spearheads, and axes have been found and are continually being found in the River Thames. The River is a well know haunt for treasure hunters, who call themselves mud larks. They obtain special permits from the Port of London Authority and continually search the River Thames in hope of finding such an item.
In fact anyone can apply for such a document, if they want to pay the price and fancy messing about getting filthy dirty in mud all weekend. It should be noted that the Port of London Authority, whilst allowing people to search the river banks put restrictions on any searching between Westminster and Battersea.
Now isn't this interesting? you are allowed to search other places along the Thames except the area's where the historians and archaeologists are aware that major conflicts between Caesar and Cassivellaunus along this stretch of the River and this is the area where all the shields, spears, swords and other weapons have been found.
This is typical of the Oxford Cambridge academics and their stupid way of thinking, in that nothing happened before the Roman's arrived in Britain or before 1066. How dare they even consider the Briton's welcomed Caesar with open arms and were going to allow him to take over without a fight.
Surely, someone at the museum has the sense to realize that swords and shields were highly prized items and the only time anyone would lose one would be in battle following a fight which resulted in death.
This is how these shields and other relics were lost and swallowed up by the fast flowing waters of the Thames remaining in the mud until they were discovered. The River Thames is sometimes described as holding the biggest collection of treasures anywhere in the world.
How many more of these wondrous objects of British history remain there in the river's mud waiting to be unearthed and put on display for the public to see is unknown but there must be many. For it is written that thousands of Briton's and Romans took part in this battle and many would have died in the fighting.
It is strange that whilst many British shields are displayed in the museums, there are not any roman ones? Is that because the Roman ones were made of wood, which floated away from the scene of any battle and eventually sank when the became water logged and rotted away? The leading question of course is why the absence of such items, when columns of Roman legionnaires are all depicted with shields and full body armour?
The answer to the problem is that only any metal objects such as the brass on the side and any other fillings would survive, It also shows that the Briton's were more advanced by using metal shields against the wooden ones used by the Romans.
But thin iron strips would rust away over the years or if they survived had become unrecognizable. However, when one considers the size of a Roman shield anyone finding strips of metal would fail to recognize what the objects were unless they were familiar with roman shields.
When will the director's, historians and so-called archaeologists wake up and put two and two together? What are they paid for anyway? Isn't it their job and responsibility to inform the public of the truth and how it all came to be? Isn't there anyone who gets a nice fat salary from the government game enough to stand up and admit the truth? Why do they leave the public to work this out for themselves?
I doubt it in this day and age; some would lie out of their eyeteeth rather than lose a lucrative job with a promise of a pension on retirement.
by Alan Hassell
©copyright all rights reserved 1/2/2004
There is nothing more frustrating than picking up any historical book about Britain and reading nothing more than Roman crap and bullshit. When it comes to British history some have a great failing in as much as nothing happened before the Romans arrived. No one really lived here according To some historians and academics except a few tribes called Celts.
The thing is when it comes to British History, producer of a popular archaeological program knows absolutely nothing about British History or the Kings that Ruled the country long before the Romans came.
Why is it that whenever they are on one of these digs and they come across an old church they automatically assumes that it is either Roman or Anglo Saxon?
On Sunday January the 25th 2004 they aired a program digging up skeletons.
Anglo Saxon women were noted as being small yet they came across a woman who at first they believed to be 6 foot tall and buried with a shield and a dagger.
Automatically they assume she was and Anglo Saxon, not even considering that she could have been British and was maybe part of the Boadacea rebellion. Did they do forensic tests on the actual bones they found? Maybe they didn't even do a carbon 14 test to find out the age of the bones.
I very much doubt it. I cant say for sure myself, but Boadacea did poison herself or used an adder to strike the final blow after being defeated by the Romans in her last battle that almost destroyed the entire Roman army in Britain.
Whist Boadacea and her followers might not have had the discipline and training of the Roman Army she was to become known as the first female freedom fighter.
The fact is no one has ever found her grave. The so called scientists don't even know themselves without doing carbon 14 tests on the bones and taking DNA samples and testing them whether the body was British or Anglo Saxon. Why oh why do they always jump to conclusions on wild assumptions without positive proof?
The way old Baldrick (Tony Robinson) carries on one would think he is the worlds leading authority on BULLDUST because that is how it all comes across to me and as long as they are making money Who gives a toss anyway.
Although the production crew do attempt to project the digs they do honestly, when it comes to anything pre-roman they result to guesswork, which is not factual and in fact very damaging.
We are presented with the simple question as to why a two thousand year recorded history has been so pointedly ignored by modern scholars. Why is it that the history of Britain is an entirely blank page before the year 55 BC in any conventional modern history book when such an easily accessible and informative record is at hand?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that the Britons traced their ancestry in these pre-Christian records back to patriarchs that are known to us from the Genesis record but of whom the Britons should have known nothing in their pre-Christian culture if what the modernists have always told us was true?
Why is it that they fail to recognize the true Britain's who lived here long before the Romans arrived were in fact practicing Christians that had there own churches and places of worship?
They know that the British were here and were practicing Christianity, but will never admit it, why? They also are well aware that St. Augustine wasn't the first person to start Christianity in Britain and Europe in AD 600.
Lets, go back in time a little and see if this makes sense the way it should be.
We know that Jesus was crucified on the cross. Mel Gibson, spent much of his own money creating a film about the last hours of Jesus. He goes onto show the brutality of how the Romans in their lust for blood put Jesus through excruciating pain and suffering before finally nailing him to the cross.
The Roman's in fact were a bunch of cruel tyrants, they put unarmed Christians into an arena to be eaten alive by lions. This spectacle was watched by the thousands that had gathered there to witness the brutality.
Joseph claimed the body of Christ, seven hours later when he was presumed and declared dead.
The Roman's let Joseph have the body for burial and then according to legend he buried his body in a cave.
Three days after that the body of Jesus had disappeared into thin air.
Or had it? Maybe just maybe he wasn't dead but badly injured and on the verge of dying when taken down from the cross. Then he was whisked away together with some of his disciples and followers and secreted to Britain of all places.
Now Joseph was none other than Joseph of Arimathea, a very rich merchant who dealt in metals amongst other things.
He could bribe people to keep their mouths shut about certain things and getting Jesus and his companions out of the country would have been a difficult but not impossible task.
Fortunately, Joseph had a really good ally on his side, one who had a lot of power and who was sympathetic towards him and his cause. This person was none other than King Caradoc, who's daughter or wife Eurgain had attending one of the sermons Jesus gave.
Eurgain, the daughter of Caradoc told her father of the wondrous things Jesus spoke about and was so impressed that she persuaded her father to give him and his follower's shelter in a safe haven, Britain.
One of the very first churches is the famous Llandaff Cathedral situated in Wales. There are many others there too, like the Cor Emrys St. Peters church on Caer Caradoc in Wales. Glastonbury, was not the location of one of the first churches in Somerset. The true Glastonbury, is situated in the midlands owing to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the old records. A more detailed account of this can be found in, The Holy Kingdom" by Adrian Gilbert, Alan Wilson & Baram Blackett.
Once they arrived in Britain, they immediately started to build churches and places of worship and so Christianity was born in Britain. This was over 500 years before St. Augustine had even thought about starting religion in Britain. It is believed that the changeover to Christianity was compulsory and so was attendance to a church.
So the stories perpetuated by the Anglo Saxons and their so called starting Christianity into Britain is a load of hogwash, bulldust and lies, the same lies and frogspawn that Time Team would like us all to believe when they make unsubstantiated claims about church ruins discovered on their so called digs.
Nennius tells us quite plainly that Christianity was introduced into Britain in AD 35 or 36. Why can't that be accepted by these so-called academics? Do they not read Nennius or the Triads or is it beyond their comprehension.
Yet here we have Academics, so called educated individuals denying that Christianity existed long before the roman's arrived. And you might wonder what they are teaching your children, that you are paying a high price for their education.
If you were a student? Would you want your child to be taught the truth or a pack of lies and bullshit?
Well; that's what they are being taught now, believe it or not. And if Tony Blair has anything to do with it students will be thousands of pounds in debt by the time they graduate and start paying the debt owed to the British Government for their so called Bullshit education.
Now, let us move on, We have all heard stories about Vortigren inviting the Anglo Saxon's over to Britain to act as mercenaries to fight the picts and Scots who were causing problems north of the border.
Hengist and Horsa were granted lands by King Vortigren against the wishes of his fellow Britain's.
Once the fighting was over Vortigren had no need for the Anglo Saxons and war broke out.
Eventually, there was a peace conference to be held. It was agreed by both parties that no weapons would be taken to the gathering.
The Britain's observed this like fools and went unarmed to their doom, for the despicable Saxons hid their long knives in their boots and once much ale had been drunk, on a given word the Saxons used the knives to kill 386 British Nobles who were present at the Peace conference.
This event became known as the night of the long swords and was told to every new generation in Wales, where the incident occurred. There is a monument there, which has been allowed to go into ruin to hide this infamous event.
Did I say monument, hmmmm, sorry that monument happens to be an ordnance survey marker dumped directly over the burial mound by the Welsh Authorities in an attempt to hide and destroy one of Britain/s most infamous deeds perpetrated by the Anglo Saxons.
To my way of thinking it offended someone in authority with English blood running through his veins that he felt insulted by the reminder and decided to eliminate it by desecration and destruction. One thing the authorities cannot do is erase the memory of such an event and never will.
Vortigren only escaped with his life because he had married Rowena the daughter of Hengist although he was offered for ransom first. When this was refused they set him free.
One person managed to escape and when Emrys Wledig (Ambrosias Aurelianus) learnt about the treachery he immediately returned from Brittany and gathered an army together and went in pursuit of Hengist and Horsa.
Hengist was caught and killed; his brother Horsa and the rest of his band of butchers were spared and given land in Scotland.
When I went through school myself, I was taught that Caesar was the first Roman to conquer Britain such was the knowledge of my teachers. Teachers are only passing on the same old crap today, as they were when I was educated.
Fortunately, I was taught to read and write and find out things for myself and make my own decisions about certain things.
If the truth were really known about Caesar, far from being the conquering hero that many considered him to be both his attempts in AD 55 and AD 54 to gain a stronghold in Britain were in fact miserable failures and total disasters.
Caesar had just conquered Gaul after a campaign that lasted about two years. Having achieved that quite successfully he then set his sites on Britain.
Caesar was well aware of the mineral wealth of Britain in the form of metals such as tin, lead, copper, silver and gold. Then there was the produce which he considered to be worthy of adding to the Roman Empire's wealth.
Alan Wilson told me that according to Welsh histories there was an exchange of letters between Caesar and the British King Cassivellaunus (leader of the Catevellauni) otherwise known as Caswallon who was a brother to King Llud. King Llud was the high king of the north Thames area of Britain. Caesar demanded that Caswallon submit Britain to Roman rule and also pay a tribute to prevent the spilling of blood.
Caswallon replied to Caesars letter stating that he was astonished by the Avarice of the Romans to even attempt to take Britain by force and should they be invaded the British would put up a fight till the death. Or words to that effect.
Caesar was under the impression the Britain's knew nothing of war and the production of weapons and would be easy subjects to subdue. Caesar with the victory over the Gaul's under his belt was eager for another great victory to impress the Senate once he returned to Rome.
Although, the British Kings often fought amongst themselves over territorial disputes when it came to battles with intruders such as Julius Caesar these tribes would unite and join forces exactly the same as they did during the Boadacea rebellion.
The main reason for this is because they all had one thing in common, their original birth right and heritage. They all originated from the same area and were known as the Kymry.
Once the kings or leaders of the various tribes were gathered to discuss how they would handle the situation they would elect a Pendragon or leader who would lead them into battle. The person selected was Cassivellaunus (Casswallon). King Arthur many years later would follow Caswallon's example and do exactly the same by joining forces with other kings from their own kingdoms to stop the Anglo Saxons in several battles.
Caesar had sent one of his trusted officers, Caius Volusenus to scout the shoreline of Briton. He returned to Portus Itius (Boulogne) after five days of reconnoitering and then guided the Legions across the Channel to their landing sight.
So it appears that Caesar arrived off the south coast of Britain in ships with as many as 12,000 men in his army.
Caesars ships came unstuck with either the shallow water or low tides because he was unable top get his ships close to shore to unload his men. With his ships grounded, the Britons on horseback were able to pick off the Romans game enough to enter the water. Finally a standard bearer took the plunge and the legionnaires followed. Caesar is believed to have lost many men fighting his way off the beaches.
What Caesar hadn't counted on was the fact that Caswallon was not only familiar with the modern tactics of Legionary warfare but had something the Roman's never expected to see Chariots and Caswallon's guerrilla style of hit and run warfare.
The fighting that took place on the beaches was such that Caesar had to return to his ships twice and the spillage of blood on both sides was such that it stained the gray sea giving it a purple look.
Caesar writes, In chariot fighting the Britons begin by driving all over the field hurling javelins, and generally inspired by the horses and the noise of the wheels are sufficient to thrown their opponents ranks in disorder.
Then after making their way between the squadrons of their own cavalry, they jump down from their chariots and engage on foot. In the meantime their charioteer retire a short distance from the battle and place the chariots in such position that their masters, if hard pressed by numbers, have every means to retreat to their own lines.
Why cant these so called historians and film researchers with all this information staring them in the face put two and two together are they incapable of thinking?
The British always favored hills and high places in which they preferred to do battle. Whilst it would be no effort for a horse to gallop up a hill at full speed, the roman foot soldier or infantry would find it hard going. One can imagine, guerrilla type attacks from hills hitting the rear and flanks of Caesars columns, throwing them into total disarray and reducing the Roman numbers considerably.
Once they broke off the engagement the Roman's would follow then up the steep inclines exhausting themselves in the process. Once they reached a certain level Caswallon's men watching and resting from the top of the hill would charge forward together with the chariots to further confuse the Romans, throwing them into retreat for fear the chariots would inflict serious injury to them.
Caesar was totally unprepared for this type of warfare and he glossed over events. He also lied about the way the Briton's dressed comparing them to the Gaul's who he described as being naked and painting their bodies in woad.
When it comes to matters regarding Caesar, it is far more reliable to turn to Strabo the Greek geographer who writes: 'He came not clad in skins like a Seythian, but with a bow in his hand, a quiver hanging on his shoulders, a plaid wrapped about his body, a gilded belt encircling his loins, and trousers reaching from the waist down to the soles of his feet. He was easy in his address; agreeable in his conversation; active in his dispatch, and secret in the management of great affairs; quick in judging of present accuracies; and ready to take part in any sudden emergency: provident withal in guarding against futurity: diligent in the quest for wisdom: fond of friendship: trusting little to fortune, yet having the entire confidence of others, and trusted with everything for his prudence. He spoke Greek with a fluency, that you would have thought he had been bred up in the Lyceum, and conversed all his life in the Academy of Athens.
Strabo, it appears gives a far more honest description of the British not only in their fashion of dress but also of their intelligence and prudence in all matters. Caesar had far more to lose than his credibility if the real truth about events were to be known in Rome.
Caswallon's youngest brother, Nennius (Nynnyaw), fought hand to hand with Julius Caesar on the invasion of Britain in the year 55 BC. The Romans had been trying to set up camp in the Thames estuary when the Britons fell upon Caesar's 10th Legion by surprise and attacked them.
During the battle in which hand-to-hand fighting took place Caesar thrust his sword into the shield of Nennius who had attacked them and was unable to extract it. This was because some shields were made of numerous layers of hide that when stretched tight a weapon such as a sword might be able to penetrate it but extraction would prove to be very difficult.
Although other soldiers forced Nennius away from Caesar, he did manage to capture the emperor's sword. Nennius although wounded in the conflict managed to escape together with Caesar's sword but he died of his wounds fifteen days later and was buried beside the northern entrance to Trinovantum (modern Bishops gate in London?); some say that he was buried where the Tower of London now stands or Bryn Gwyn.
Thus they combine the mobility of cavalry with the staying power of infantry: and by daily training and practice they attain such proficiency that even on a steep incline they are able to control the horses at full gallop, and to check and turn them at a moment. They can run along the chariot pole, stand on the yoke, and get back in the chariot as quick as lightning.
This tells us a lot about what Caswallon and the early Briton's were capable of with their chariots. It also tells us the early Briton's were able to throw Caesars well-trained infantry into complete and utter disarray once they bought the chariots into use. It must also be remembered, that many of those chariots had iron swords or other devices attached to the hub of the wheels.
Not only would the wheels inflict serious injuries to anyone hapless enough to come into contact with the wheels or swords but it would have had a terrifying effect on Caesars army once a few charges had been made between Caesars ranks. Not only were they confronting with a horse galloping at full speed but they also had to contend with getting out of the way of the weapons on the wheels or face serious injury if not death.
It is very strange that although mention is made in many documented accounts that British chariots did use such devices to inflict damage on the invaders, when they made the film about Boadacea, the producers of the film failed to show them in the film although they were shown and used in the film Ben Hur with the fantastic chariot race scenes.
Sounds like double standards were being used here to show the Briton's in a poor light. The actual chariot replica made and used in the film is now on display at the British Museum.
It would also be wasteful to send out a chariot driven by one man with a solitary spear to throw at the enemy. Two maybe three people would have been on a chariot one or two archers and the driver. One only needs to look at murals from ancient Syria in the British Museum to realize that this is how they fought in battle with such weapons.
This sword was considered a great trophy, and was paraded before large crowds and put on show for all to see in London after Caesars departure. If you look closely at the Coat of Arms of the City of London in the top left hand quadrant of the shield, Caesars sword is still there for all to see and is still being used as a form of insignia as it has right through the centuries.
The sword remained in Britain for many years, at one stage it was even thought to have been 'Excalibur' the sword that King Arthur used. Eventually, it mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again.
There are numerous stories about the sword and one of them suggests that Constantine took possession of the sword and it was never seen again.
There were two kings who might have caused its loss. The first could have been King John who is supposed to have lost his whole treasure wagon in the notorious wash at King's Lynn.
The Second could have been the Parliamentarians who sold off King Charles the First treasures to whoever was willing to pay the price after his execution. Much of his treasure was purchased by France and maybe still there.
However, the sword recently turned up in America of all places. How it got there I'm not sure and not prepared to hazard a guess.
Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett have seen the sword in person. It was made with words built into it, which state,' whoever holds this sword commands the army.' Or words to that effect.
Apart from the shield part of the city of London's coat of arms on the full coat of arms there are other more mysterious things that few people know about. For example situated either side of the shield are two dragons representing the associations with Pendragon and King Arthur.
Directly above the shield we see King Arthur's helmet, the cross in the middle of the shield is what is referred today as the cross of St. George. Even this is misunderstood for is this not the cross that Arthur is documented as having carried in some of his major battles and also when he donated land to Llandaff Cathedral as written in the Llandaff Charters?
As the Romans advanced, farmers would move their cattle further away from the Roman forces and drove them into the forests where they couldn't be seen. Caesars, supply lines at the rear were constantly being attacked depriving Caesar and his men of much needed food and essential supplies.
Caesar, might have fought many battles and skirmishes along the River Thames and may even crossed over to the north side of it but he knew very little of the inhabitants or the real Briton's.
A major battle took place at the Isle of Thorns which is approximately where the houses of parliament, Westminster are now. That was one on the few places that could be crossed as there was a ford there at one stage.
Archaeologists tell us that there were fordable places Battersea too, which will be of special interest later.
Just by the houses of parliament there is a large statue of Boadacea on her chariot together with her daughters. It is a really remarkable statue. Now, try to imagine 4,000 or more of those things being lined up along the banks of the River Thames with Caesar and his 12,000 infantry pondering how they are going to overcome such a force?
Caesar writes: I noticed large enemy forces drawn up on the opposite bank. The bank had also been fortified with sharp stakes fixed along it, and, as I discovered from prisoners and deserters, similar stakes had been driven into the riverbed and were concealed beneath the water.
Cassivellaunus disbanded some of his forces, said to be in excess of 30,000, keeping some 4,000 charioteers with whom he kept a close watch on the line of March. He kept his men some distance from the main marching legionnaires and in doing so was able to follow the Roman advance.
They concealed themselves in the woods and thickets, and when they discovered the areas through which we should be marching, they drove the inhabitants and their cattle out of the fields and into the woods. Then, whenever our cavalry had ventured any distance into the fields to get plunder or devastate the country, they sent these charioteers out of the woods by every road and track to attack them.
Notice the word road was used in this old document. The Roman's were walking along British built roads and knew of their existence. Not all roads built in Britain were built by the Roman's although later they might have added to what was already there and improved upon them. The British did have their own roads and they also had transport even if it was chariots.
Caesar's men were in great danger from such clashes, and fear of them prevented them from ranging far a field. The result was that Caesar could not allow the cavalry to go any distance from the main column of infantry; thus the damage our cavalry could inflict on the Britons by burning and ravaging their land was limited by the capacity of our infantry, when they were tired from strenuous marching, to give them protection.
Caesar appears to know of only one ford, while archaeologist has located a number of possible fords: at Westminster, Battersea, and Vauxhall. This suggests that the Roman forces were deliberately fed disinformation in order to make them attempt their crossing at the most heavily defended point.
It also suggests that the boundary of the territory of Cassivellaunus (leader of the Catevellauni) was along the Thames. What few people knew at the time was Cassivellaunus was the brother King Llud who had established Trinovantanium, which would have been clearly visible from the South bank of the River Thames. Strangely, there is no mention of it being seen despite being situated so close to the river.
However, a simple explanation is that as Trinovantanium was situated some distance to the east, Caesar and his forces might not have seen it as their journey would have been from southeast to northwest. One must also remember that the River Thames was much wider then than it is today.
Much of it would have been flood plain with tree's either side of the River, which would have obscured the view of what was behind the trees. There were no tall buildings in those days in which anyone could get a birds eye view from the south bank of the River Thames as there are today.
A column especially when tired of marching pays little attention to what is ahead, they are more concerned about kicking the bloke in front of them should they break out of step as sometimes happens in the military.
The tactics that the British adopted appear to have inflicted real damage on the Romans, and reflect rather better on the British that classical sources normally suggest. Although the Romans may have been able to win one or two engagements at Cassivellaunus stronghold, the Romans left Britain, and did not return for 90 years.
The geographer Strabo states,'The deified Caesar crossed over twice to the island, but came back in haste, without accomplishing much or proceeding very far inland'. Caesar described the early Briton's as being naked and using woad to dye their bodies blue. One wonders if Caesar actually came to Britain if he couldn't describe the dress of the locals.
The Roman poet Lucan confirms the defeat and humiliation of the Romans; "In haste he turned and showed his back to the British he had attacked."
Nennius on the other hand writes a more interesting story. 19. The Romans having obtained the dominion of the world, sent legates or deputies to the Britons to demand of them hostages and tribute, which they received from all other countries and islands; but they, fierce, disdainful, and haughty, treated the legation with contempt.
Then Julius Caesar, the first who had acquired absolute power at Rome, highly incensed against the Britons, sailed with sixty vessels to the mouth of the Thames, where they suffered shipwreck whilst he fought against Dolobellus, (the proconsul of the British king, and thus Julius Caesar returned home without victory, having had his soldiers slain, and his ships shattered.
In those days a battle would be fought during the day and they would collect their dead and bury them during the night. It was more like something out of a Looney tunes cartoon where Wiley Coyote would clock on in the morning for his shift while Ralph the devoted watch dog would stand guard over the flock of sheep during the day only to clock off at night fall.
In Ludgate Circus there used to be a large statue of King Llud and his two sons. They are dressed and one of the sons, believed to be Tenuantius appears to be wearing body Armour as well. This statue alone proves that the British people were not naked but dressed, highly intelligent well-educated individuals and well prepared for going into battle.
There is a better print of the statues at Guildhall, in that all three are shown wearing swords behind them. Which proves beyond doubt they were well armed and prepared for battle.
Caesar would have sent out scouting parties looking for other possible places upstream in which they might be able to cross the Thames. Once they were halfway across, the British would attack them at their most vulnerable point where they would be forced to retreat. There is no reason to suspect that he didn't, because there is tangible evidence that he did.
Fortunately, the British Museum is the largest storehouse of treasures in Britain. Inside, there are number of iron age shields that have been recovered from the Thames together with many other objects such as axes, spears and daggers.
The Museum of London also has a huge collection of similar weapons, many recovered from the Thames.
According to members of the staff at the museum state that, 'many of these have been associated with votive offerings to the gods by the Celts.'
Votive offerings to the Gods, such is the education of the people that work in museums that they consider the British to be Celts. Have they learnt nothing, The Britain's were derived from Brutas, they were descendants who originally occupied Britain from Troy. They were in fact Trojans but were Christians as Nennius declares and writes about them converting to Christianity in AD 35 ' 36. Even the Pope the highest religious person in the world recognizes that the British were the First Christians.
Weapons were highly sought after and highly prized items in those days. They were expensive items too and those that had them would not leave them out of their sight and would even sleep with them. The only time a warrior would give up his weapons was when he was injured or killed in Battle.
Looking at the intricate designs on the shields and similarities the designs it is quite conceivable that the markings could have been a form of insignia of certain tribes and rank of high standing individuals either way these shields look nothing like the easily recognizable shields the Romans used indicating that these shields were British.
Votive offerings to the gods is a feeble excuse to escape the real truth that a Battle had taken place. It was only when the fight was over that bodies would have been retrieved, but the weapons submerged in water and mud would remain there until such time as they were found again.
Such is the case of the many weapons, shields, knives, spearheads, and axes have been found and are continually being found in the River Thames. The River is a well know haunt for treasure hunters, who call themselves mud larks. They obtain special permits from the Port of London Authority and continually search the River Thames in hope of finding such an item.
In fact anyone can apply for such a document, if they want to pay the price and fancy messing about getting filthy dirty in mud all weekend. It should be noted that the Port of London Authority, whilst allowing people to search the river banks put restrictions on any searching between Westminster and Battersea.
Now isn't this interesting? you are allowed to search other places along the Thames except the area's where the historians and archaeologists are aware that major conflicts between Caesar and Cassivellaunus along this stretch of the River and this is the area where all the shields, spears, swords and other weapons have been found.
This is typical of the Oxford Cambridge academics and their stupid way of thinking, in that nothing happened before the Roman's arrived in Britain or before 1066. How dare they even consider the Briton's welcomed Caesar with open arms and were going to allow him to take over without a fight.
Surely, someone at the museum has the sense to realize that swords and shields were highly prized items and the only time anyone would lose one would be in battle following a fight which resulted in death.
This is how these shields and other relics were lost and swallowed up by the fast flowing waters of the Thames remaining in the mud until they were discovered. The River Thames is sometimes described as holding the biggest collection of treasures anywhere in the world.
How many more of these wondrous objects of British history remain there in the river's mud waiting to be unearthed and put on display for the public to see is unknown but there must be many. For it is written that thousands of Briton's and Romans took part in this battle and many would have died in the fighting.
It is strange that whilst many British shields are displayed in the museums, there are not any roman ones? Is that because the Roman ones were made of wood, which floated away from the scene of any battle and eventually sank when the became water logged and rotted away? The leading question of course is why the absence of such items, when columns of Roman legionnaires are all depicted with shields and full body armour?
The answer to the problem is that only any metal objects such as the brass on the side and any other fillings would survive, It also shows that the Briton's were more advanced by using metal shields against the wooden ones used by the Romans.
But thin iron strips would rust away over the years or if they survived had become unrecognizable. However, when one considers the size of a Roman shield anyone finding strips of metal would fail to recognize what the objects were unless they were familiar with roman shields.
When will the director's, historians and so-called archaeologists wake up and put two and two together? What are they paid for anyway? Isn't it their job and responsibility to inform the public of the truth and how it all came to be? Isn't there anyone who gets a nice fat salary from the government game enough to stand up and admit the truth? Why do they leave the public to work this out for themselves?
I doubt it in this day and age; some would lie out of their eyeteeth rather than lose a lucrative job with a promise of a pension on retirement.
I always knew that King Llud had started London. When I worked at Fleet Street as a youth, there used to be a statue of Kind Llud and his sons situated at Ludgate Circus as a memorial to King Llud who was one of the principle founders of Londinium.
It appears Llud's statue and his wall has had a turbulent career over the centuries. During King John's reign when he was forced to sign the Magna Charta, riots broke out in London. The Jewish quarter in Ludgate was stormed and materials were taken to restore the damage done to the walls. Year's later evidence of this was found when stones bearing Hebrew characters were discovered in the masonry of the gate.
In 1260, during the reign of Henry III the gate was again adorned with the statues of Llud and his two sons, Androgeus, (Arfarwy) and Tenuantius. During the reign of Edward VI, for some reason the population took a dislike to all images and decapitated the heads off of the statues. These were eventually restored by Queen Mary.
However during the reign of Queen Elizabeth the first, the gate was taken down and completely rebuilt with the statues being moved over to the eastern side of the gate. In 1990 the City of London and Ludgate underwent a major redevelopment of the area.
The bridge that carried the underground railway was removed and trains diverted underground. Llud's statues were also moved to St. Dustan's in the west, just up the road from Fleet Street near the law courts. It can be found in an alcove of the old church via the side entrance, which is often hard to see as the gates are often locked. I think Llud's statue should be removed and installed in the care of the Museum of London where it might even be restored to its original condition.
Brutus was the originally founder of the capitol city of Lloegres on the north side of the River Thames and he called it Troia Newydd, meaning, 'New Troy', this is documented in the Brut Tysylio and on many websites on the Internet if you want to check it out yourself.
Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Latin translation became Troia Nova, which was later corrupted into Trinovantium.
Nennius also calls London Trinovantium and says that, 'Caesar fought a battle against the British near a place called Trinovantium. Caesar also writes that this battle was fought by the only ford available on the Thames, at the Island of Thorns, which is now Westminister. Trinovantium has to be no other place than London.
Much is known about King Llud or Llud AP Beli Mawr AP Manogan, he started, his reign in 72 BC, seventeen years before the Romans even came to Britain. He was the regional King of the North Thames area.
He is reputed to have been a very powerful leader owning many cities and castles. He also had a reputation of being a mighty warrior in battle. Llud had a very powerful brother called Cassivellaunus (Casswallon) which was corrupted into Casswallon who reigned from 58-38 BC.
Llud also knew of the importance of building defenses and as Troia Newydd (London) was one of his favorite places he did in fact fortify it. Belinus, Llud's father is said to have been building a large wall eight foot thick at its foundations out of stone and limestone.
During Llud's childhood he would have spent many days with his father whilst Beli Mawr was building the great wall and would of continued the work long after his fathers death. The wall was reputed to be over twenty feet high and enclosed a large area protecting the city from any invaders.
According to the Brut Tysylio and other traditional histories King Llud is credited with building a huge wall made out of lime and stone around the city which was eight foot thick at its base. Apparently this wall enclosed an area of 324 acres and was claimed to have been there before the Boadacea rebellion in AD 60.
He also built huge towers and in the west part of the wall built this huge gate. Once it was complete Llud ordered that the gate be named after him hence the name Ludgate which is still used today. This again is documented in the Mabinogion.
This proves that the Mabinogian is telling the truth and not the myths, fairy tales and porky pies, as some completely uneducated individuals would like us all to believe.
There were many gates built on the wall, the place names remain to this day, Aldgate, Highgate, Ludgate, Newgate, Billingsgate, named after Llud's father Beli Mawr, Bishops gate and Cripplegate to name a few. It is possible that some of these were added onto the great wall after Luds death. In Guildhall there are very old engravings of what were the ten gates that allowed entrance to the great city.
Llud's father King Heli (Beli Mawr in the Welsh) ruled for forty years until 73 BC, during which time he continued to build great buildings in London and passed on his building skills to his son Llud who became king. It appears that although Llud is given much credit for building London, it was a continuing process of development started by Bruta's and continued through the ages. Just as development and re-development has continued within the city of London to the present day.
Not much of the great wall that Llud built is left standing although there is much of it to bee seen still around a few places in London. Starting out at Tower Hill almost directly opposite the Tower itself and beside the underground tube station is one section still to be see about twenty five feet high and some 80 yards in length.
Just around the corner from the station is the Grand hotel, which has two flaming torches outside the main building. In the car park next to the main entrance one can see another 100-foot section of the wall, which has been decorated with lights and is more colourful to photograph. What is interesting here is the fact that at the wall, which is fenced off, is split between the car park and basement below. One can see down into the basement and the size of the actual foundations of the wall.
They are as already stated and written down throughout time and history about eight foot thick. Although this is claimed to be a Roman Wall, it fits the descriptions already written many centuries ago and there is no doubt that this wall was built by Llud as was written. The Romans may of repaired and extended sections of the wall during their occupation, but they were not the initial architects and builders of the wall.
Even more astounding is the fact that this hotel is redeveloping a site next door having bought the site they now intend to expand with this added extension. Now the interesting thing is that they have an archaeologist on the site because the builders have come across the foundations of another section of the wall once more.
Although, I wasn't allowed to take photographs the hole the builders had already dug was a good thirty to forty feet below street level. When you add another twenty to thirty feet of the wall above street level, the height of the actual wall could have been forty to fifty feet high in its day.
It would also have been a really massive sight to behold and would have presented many problems for anyone wanting to take London by storm. There are more sections of the wall still visible for the general public to see especially around Barbican near the Museum of London and surrounding streets.
It is claimed that not far from Ludgate, Llud also built himself a fine palace, which is the Bishop of London's palace.
What all this really means is that London was by its size the largest city not only in Britain but also in the whole of Europe.
If this is so then we have a motive for Caesars greed to take such a prize.
King Llud is also said to have been the first person to have measured Briton from top to bottom and coast to coast.
Llud had sons, so there must have been a woman in his life, sadly I have been unable to come up with the name of such a woman, it may well be that Llud had a number of ladies he shared his affections with.
Apart from building a palace for himself, Llud also invited others to build many fine houses within his walls that he had built. Hmmmm, now just a cotton-picking minute, who were the people that stated the Briton's lived in wooden thatched huts? Here, we have a direct statement of fine palaces being built and lived in.
It is precisely at this point that the Academics will start ranting and raving that the wall was built by the Romans, but was it? Now start putting your thinking caps on kiddiewinks and start reading about the Trojan war and how the Trojans were able to hold out against the armies of Greece for Ten Years. Brutus and his men would have realized the importance of defenses and would have taken measures to ensure they were well protected, they certainly had many years prior to Caesar's visit to construct it.
Didn't a huge wall protect Troy too? The Greek Army tried hard enough to get inside the huge wall and only gained entrance by using the famous Trojan horse.
Surely someone with Brutus would have known about the importance of walls keeping out the enemy? We are not talking about wild uneducated savages here, these were well-educated individuals who had seen and experienced beautiful palaces with marble columns and floors and knew how to protect themselves too.
Brutu's even married a Greek Princess, for god's sake she lived in style in palaces befitting her stature and rank. Her own father would not have lived in a mere shack so why would she? Are these so called academics taught nothing or is that what they are told to preach? Sometimes it is better not to be educated and know something than to be educated and know nothing.
They had a fluent knowledge of the Greek language, the Roman historians tell us, and so does Strabo. So why wouldn't they also have a knowledge of building fine palaces? Even in Llud's day London was a very busy city where merchants provided and sold merchandise from many countries including much Mediterranean produce.
In fact, there are several mentions that the Kings of Britain not only lived in fine palaces but used marble and had mosaic tiles floors with intricate designs placed on them too.
The British Museum has a fine example with the Christian religious symbol of Chi Rho featured plainly on it. Only a very brave man and powerful leader would have had such on the floor or walls of his house. Although, it is credited with being Roman, it is highly probable and not impossible that this came from one of the palaces that were once owned by a ruling King of Britain as it was there religion.
Even after the Claudian invasion, the Roman's, although they might have tried to convert the British to Christianity gave up and never intervened in the British way of religion. The Roman's had too many gods whilst the British only had one in which to put their faith in.
This explains why the Chi Rho mosaic now on prominent view to the public in the British Museum was allowed to be situated where it was and tolerated by the Roman's, if they ever saw it?
The truth is the great wall of London had already been built when the Roman's arrived and whilst they may of built onto and added to it and maybe repaired it in certain places they alone did not build it, the British did so it is high time this was recognized and renamed Llud's wall, who is named as the architect in so many documents.
Not everything that the British Museum states has to be correct. This is because they refuse to recognize anything that might be British or something they simply do not understand. Therefore they make these wild assumptions about it possibly being Roman or Saxon without even considering other possibilities.
I will give credit where it is due, I admire the honesty of the curator of the Museum of London who gave me detailed information regarding the statues of King Llud. I was hoping the Museum would place the statue in the museum in order for its future preservation and for the people. Some historians do have a genuine interest in the British Kings.
How many treasures in the museum connected to the Roman's are or were originally British? Who would know for sure? As the Briton's would have adopted Greek as well as Roman architecture before the Romans did gain a foothold.
The question remains, how many British building were mistaken as being Roman? No one in the Museum can give a definite answer to the question, and no one would dare answer it.
One cannot lay the blame on the staff and everyone working for museums. They are the guardians of the nations treasures. Unfortunately politics and politicians lay down the guidelines of what can and what cannot be stated. The same as what is acceptable to be taught in Britain's schools.
The Brut Tysylio and the Mabinogian state that Brutus who was a great great grandson of Aeneas originally founded London. Brutus died after a memorial reign of twenty-four years and was interred by the side of Imogene on the Bryn Gwyn (the White Mount). Which is believed to have been where the Tower of London now stands or in that area.
After the destruction of Troy around 1,200 B.C., Aeneas, born of a royal bloodline, fled with the remnants of his people and settled in Italy. There he married the daughter of Latinus, the king of the Latin's, and through this line later emerged the Roman Empire.
The grandson of Aeneas, a man called Brutus, had to flee Italy when he accidentally killed his father on a hunting trip. He arrived in Greece, on discovery of his royal lineage, dispossessed Trojans flocked to his command. He eventually married the daughter of the Greek king. He then commandeered a fleet and was visited by the goddess Diana and was sent to sail west until he found a land where his people would live in peace.
Brutus eventually reached the isle of Albion, landing at Totnes in Cornwall. He eventually founded the city of Trinovantum (New Troy), or Caer Troia as the Britons called it, around 1000 B.C. the city was dedicated to the goddess Diana by Brutus and he founded a temple to her.
Diabolical as it might sound to some, this is well documented and references to Brutas and his discoveries can be found all over the internet so this is not a figment of my imagination it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.
There are web sites that anyone can even trace the origins of people right back to Adam and Eve if you have the inclination and time to look for them. Knowledge in this day and age is so important if we are to find our real roots and who we really are.
King Llud (73 BC) re-named it "Caer-Llud" (Llud's Town). It later became known as London. When Llud died, he was buried near a gateway called Ludgate.
The re-naming of the city has been a disaster for British history. Not only have we forgotten our links with ancient Troy, but we have also given ground to the advocates of evolution, who don't want us to know that, through the Trojans, we can trace our ancestry all the way back to Noah. For the skeptics, Troy was found by Hienrich Schlieman a noted German archaeologist. There is no excuse for historians or anyone to say Troy was a myth and did not exist.
Now, this is where a very strange modern day treasure find comes into the story. Towards the end of 2003 British television station channel four screened a new series of finds made in Britain by metal detectorists called, 'Hidden Treasure'.
In one of the series of programs someone had found a large collection of coins. To make the program more interesting an archaeological dig took place.
It was during the dig that a huge quantity of bones were uncovered and on forensic testing they were found to be animal bones indicating that a huge feast had taken place at one time.
In those days a battle would be fought during the day and they would collect their dead and bury them during the night. It was more like something out of a loony tunes cartoon where Wiley Coyote would clock on in the morning for his shift while Ralph the devoted watch dog would stand guard over the flock of sheep during the day only to clock off at night fall.
After the fighting when the battle had been fought and won a great feast was held, this might not be in one spot alone but in many different towns and settlements.
The Welsh triads record that Caswallon ordered the slaughter of 120,000 animals for a great feast to celebrate the victory. With the discovery of the huge number of animal bones that were found by accident following an archaeological dig on a site where coins were found buried, it shows that the triads are true and more attention should be given to them for their accuracy.
Why, I asked again, did none of the archaeologists or historians at the British Museum connect this find to what happened in AD 55? Maybe, they stubbornly refuse to recognize these old documents which far from telling myths and fairy tales are telling the truth about what happened in the so call dark ages. It is high time that these so called academics paid more attention to these writings and old documents.
Many years ago I wrote an article about my travels to the British Museum in which I mentioned the Sutton Hoo burial ship and how the guides considered it to be Anglo Saxon. They even gave the name of the supposed King that had been buried in it as Raedwald.
Sticking my nose in where it wasn't wanted I suggested to the guide that the helmets could have belonged to King Arthur? The Romans described the Britons as being clean-shaven and having moustaches the same as depicted on the helmets?
Those two famous helmets, one for use in battle and one for ceremonial purposes can only describe the person wearing them as being clean shaven and having a moustache, exactly as described by Roman writers.
Could there have been a misdating of the burial? Look at the items found in the ship? Is that not the bejeweled sword that Arthur had called Excalibur?, as mentioned numerous times in numerous writings?
Even though the Sutton Hoo burial site might have nothing what so ever to do with King Arthur, the question remains that those helmets belonged to a British King who lived in the area or had requested to be buried at that particular spot. The big question is Who?
I bet that guide felt pretty awkward after I had said my piece. However, those in the group listened to my outburst, it must have had an impact and stopped some of the bullshit the guides at the museum were notorious at spreading. Shortly after that little episode at the British Museum, I wrote an article called treasure for the people, which was published and may have ruffled a few feathers.
Today, they still have the same exhibit, only this time they question who the King who was buried in the ship really was?
Strange that isn't it. They still think its Anglo Saxon though despite the fact that Caesar wrote that British built their ships using iron nails, they still think its Anglo Saxon and refuse to accept the British had a large navy at that particular period in time.
The Anglo Saxon's used wood to construct their ships and wooden dowels to join the wood together. It makes one wonder where all of a sudden the Anglo Saxons managed to start making ships using iron nails, or obtaining the iron with which to make the nails?
Iron nails were used in the construction of the ship they found at Sutton Hoo. Since then I have visited one of the iron mines where the iron might, just might, have been mined and smelted to make those nails. But that's another story.
Having discussed this matter with the noted historians Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett we all agree on this matter as other British nobles and Kings were buried in a similar fashion.
The burial sites of these nobles are known but owing to night hawks and unscrupulous individuals using metal detectors solely for their own greed and gain, with no interest of sharing the nations history and possible treasures with the people to whom the treasure really belongs we remain silent in order to protect these sites.
The time has come to forget about past political correctness about what should be and what shouldn't History belongs to the people. Today, we have a British army, a British passport, British birth certificate and we once had a British Empire.
The only people who call themselves English are those that follow 22 idiots chasing a dammed football around a field because of a team that calls itself English instead of British.
Look on any Roman coin, on the tail it states Britannia meaning Britain. This is Britain and those that were born here are British, like it or not, and you should be proud of that fact and that the famous Battle of Britain was fought against the nazi's in the second world war. That has never been described as a battle for England. Its time to stop the bullshit.
If the truth were really known, almost everyone now has British blood running through their veins owing to intermarriage over the years between the Anglo Saxons and the British (Welsh).
There are a few exceptions to the rule because I forgot to mention the Scots and the Irish who have also interbred thanks to the women of Britain, England, Ireland and Scotland who we can thank for bearing mans children and raising them. The men, well when an opportunity arises, don't tell me your going to walk away from the worlds oldest sin, because it was installed in your genes ions ago.
Even the George Cross they use as an emblem is stolen from the British. At a famous landmark in Wales that attracts visitors from all over the world are the ruins of a very old church and monastery. Although not a great deal remains, there are a few very old tiles depicting knights on horseback.
They all carry a shield bearing a very special insignia, which happens to be the St.George Cross. Owing to souvenir hunters and thieves I am not prepared to disclosed where the tiles can be found.
Not that I want them for myself, they are part of British history and belong to the public for all to see and should remain untouched for future generations to see and admire. They would be far better off in the custody of a museum.
Even today, London, still has connections with King Arthur. Take a short walk up the strand, just outside the Law Courts in the middle of the road is an eternal symbol that was used by Uthyr Pendragon himself and that is the Dragon, which was also the symbol of Britain. Situated on almost every bridge you will see London's coat of arms and dragons.
Almost every street within the city proudly bears the same emblem together with many of the bollards. In fact its almost impossible to go anywhere in London where you are unable to catch a glimpse of it.
The Brutus stone or London stone.
Only a fragment of the original stone survives, the stone is said to have been bought there by Brutas all the way from Troy; he was supposed to have set it up in his New Troy (i.e. London) as an alter to Diana..
The London Stone has always had a special significance, marking the sacred center of London. It can be found behind railings in a wall if the Bank of China, almost opposite Cannon Street Station. I recently visited the spot and had a bit of difficulty finding it.
Some people think the Stone can be traced back to Druid times, perhaps as a Pagan Ritual Altar or a sacrificial stone. This was certainly the belief of the poet William Blake who, in 'To the Jews', imagined the groaning of the execution victims.
There's even a legend that claims it to be the same stone from which King Arthur pulled the sword, (although there are several places in Britain to make the same claim). Certainly it seems that this area of London has long been significant. In 1840, excavations to build sewers at Bush Lane, next to Cannon Street Station uncovered ancient remains of large walls belonging to a pre-Roman building, perhaps some kind of palace.
Now this is interesting because it is recorded that both Bruta's and King Llud built Palaces in London, could this be one of those building so hurriedly covered up and hushed up, so the public could not learn the truth about their history?
The early inhabitants of Britain, who arrived more than a thousand years before the Roman invasion, were the scattered remnants of the fallen city of Troy. They founded a city on the Thames and called it "Troia Newydd" (New Troy) which later became "Troynovant" or "Trinovantum".
The Trojans and Dardanians were allies, and there were intermarriages between their royal families. Aeneas was the son of Anchises, the leader of the Dardanian army. He married Creusa, the daughter of Priam, King of Troy, and they had a son called Ascanius. Aeneas and Creusa were third cousins, and their common ancestor was Tros, who founded the city of Troy. When the city was destroyed, Aeneas escaped with his father Anchises and his young son Ascanius, together with many other refugees, but Creusa got lost in the confusion. They first went to Africa, and then to Italy where they were well received by Latinus, king of the Latin's. Aeneas married Lavinia, the daughter of Latinus and they had a son called Silvius.
The journey of Aeneas to Italy, and his assimilation among the Latin's, was later to become the subject of Virgil's Aneid, written between 30 and 19 BC, so that he became immortalized in Roman literature.
Ascanius married and had a son, also called Silvius, who had his way with Lavinia's niece and got her pregnant. She gave birth to a son called Brutus, but she died during childbirth. When Brutus was 15 years old, he was out hunting with his father, and accidentally killed him while shooting an arrow at a deer. Thus he was considered to have killed both his father and his mother, although unintentionally, and was banished from Italy.
Brutus went to Greece where his royal lineage was recognized by Pandrasus, king of the Greeks, and by the downtrodden Trojans who had escaped from Troy and were living as an under-class among the Greeks. The Trojans adopted him as their leader and assembled themselves into an army.
He went to Pandrasus and asked for their liberty, so that they could live as equals with the Greeks, or else be given assistance to go to other lands. Pendrasus was enraged by this request and went to war against the Trojans, but Brutus prevailed against him.
Pendrasus was anxious to achieve a peace of some sort, but he recognized that the war had led to feelings of resentment that would make it impossible for the Trojans to continue living among the Greeks. He therefore decided that the departure of the Trojans was the only possible option, and he furnished them with ships so that they could leave. He also gave his daughter Ignoge to Brutus, to be his wife.
Brutus and his army sailed away and stopped in a few parts of Africa, and then they sailed through the Pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar) and arrived in Gaul where they picked up some Trojan exiles.
They fought some battles against the Gauls, then returned to their ships and sailed to their intended destination, an almost empty island to the north of Gaul known as "Alban" (Albion), which means "White Island".
Those who came with Brutus were called "Britons", and the island became known as "Britain". The date of their arrival is calculated to be 1074 BC, according to a footnote by Peter Roberts in his translation of Tysilio's "Chronicle of the Kings of Britain"
Brutus was a Trojan on his father's side and Latin on his mother's side. He was married to a Greek, so his descendants were Trojan, Latin and Greek. He was the first of a long line of kings, some of who intermarried with other European royal families.
Bruta's originally landed on the coast of Devon. Totnes on the dart is twelve miles from Torbay, which is the oldest seaport in South Devon. Here we find the closest evidence to Bruta's possible and a custom handed down from time immemorial and was last observed on May the sixth 1910, when the mayor read a proclamation of King George.
There is a stone embedded in the road with a sign above it saying, 'This is the Brutas stone.' The tradition being that this marks the spot where a Trojan Prince set foot after he landed in Britain after the fall of Troy in 1185 B.C.
There is also another Bruta's stone situated in Cannon Street In the City of London that Bruta's is also said to have found and built up as a fine city. That stone is still to be seen in Cannon Street not far for the underground station.
It is said, 'That should the stone disappear London will fall.' Today it is preserved behind iron bars and protected by glass to stop individuals touching it and souvenir parts of it.
It is also highly unlikely that even after the Claudius invasion of AD 43 that the Romans could have built such a city in the given time between the Boadacea rebellions of AD60. The Romans were in fact building up other places such as Colchester (Camulodunum) and Verulamium (St.Alban's).
Archaeologists and historians today forget about King Llud and what he did to fortify London despite strong documentary evidence elsewhere that clearly states that King Llud built the wall. Even today, Time team and its band of back yard historians and archaeologists, when ever they come across anything they cant explain automatically jump on the old Roman, Anglo Saxon horseshit for answers and explanations.
King Llud had two sons, one called Afarwy, (Androgeus) who was the Duke of Kent, Teneufan (Tenuantius) Duke of Kent.
It appears that Caswallon, Llud's brother had a mistress called Fflur (Flora) This lady was abducted and taken to Gaul. It appears that the jealous Afarwy was responsible and sought refuge with the Romans in Gaul. There is another story that Cassivellaunus was voted by all the tribe leaders to be King to lead the Britons in the fight against Caesar.
Arfarwy considered that was his right and in a fit of rage sought vengeance against his uncle by joining Caesar in Gaul.
Brutus was the originally founder of the capitol city of Lloegres on the north side of the River Thames and he called it Troia Newydd, meaning, 'New Troy', this is documented in the Brut Tysylio and on many websites on the Internet if you want to check it out yourself.
Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Latin translation became Troia Nova, which was later corrupted into Trinovantium.
Nennius also calls London Trinovantium and says that, 'Caesar fought a battle against the British near a place called Trinovantium. Caesar also writes that this battle was fought by the only ford available on the Thames, at the Island of Thorns, which is now Westminister. Trinovantium has to be no other place than London.
Much is known about King Llud or Llud AP Beli Mawr AP Manogan, he started, his reign in 72 BC, seventeen years before the Romans even came to Britain. He was the regional King of the North Thames area.
He is reputed to have been a very powerful leader owning many cities and castles. He also had a reputation of being a mighty warrior in battle. Llud had a very powerful brother called Cassivellaunus (Casswallon) which was corrupted into Casswallon who reigned from 58-38 BC.
Llud also knew of the importance of building defenses and as Troia Newydd (London) was one of his favorite places he did in fact fortify it. Belinus, Llud's father is said to have been building a large wall eight foot thick at its foundations out of stone and limestone.
During Llud's childhood he would have spent many days with his father whilst Beli Mawr was building the great wall and would of continued the work long after his fathers death. The wall was reputed to be over twenty feet high and enclosed a large area protecting the city from any invaders.
According to the Brut Tysylio and other traditional histories King Llud is credited with building a huge wall made out of lime and stone around the city which was eight foot thick at its base. Apparently this wall enclosed an area of 324 acres and was claimed to have been there before the Boadacea rebellion in AD 60.
He also built huge towers and in the west part of the wall built this huge gate. Once it was complete Llud ordered that the gate be named after him hence the name Ludgate which is still used today. This again is documented in the Mabinogion.
This proves that the Mabinogian is telling the truth and not the myths, fairy tales and porky pies, as some completely uneducated individuals would like us all to believe.
There were many gates built on the wall, the place names remain to this day, Aldgate, Highgate, Ludgate, Newgate, Billingsgate, named after Llud's father Beli Mawr, Bishops gate and Cripplegate to name a few. It is possible that some of these were added onto the great wall after Luds death. In Guildhall there are very old engravings of what were the ten gates that allowed entrance to the great city.
Llud's father King Heli (Beli Mawr in the Welsh) ruled for forty years until 73 BC, during which time he continued to build great buildings in London and passed on his building skills to his son Llud who became king. It appears that although Llud is given much credit for building London, it was a continuing process of development started by Bruta's and continued through the ages. Just as development and re-development has continued within the city of London to the present day.
Not much of the great wall that Llud built is left standing although there is much of it to bee seen still around a few places in London. Starting out at Tower Hill almost directly opposite the Tower itself and beside the underground tube station is one section still to be see about twenty five feet high and some 80 yards in length.
Just around the corner from the station is the Grand hotel, which has two flaming torches outside the main building. In the car park next to the main entrance one can see another 100-foot section of the wall, which has been decorated with lights and is more colourful to photograph. What is interesting here is the fact that at the wall, which is fenced off, is split between the car park and basement below. One can see down into the basement and the size of the actual foundations of the wall.
They are as already stated and written down throughout time and history about eight foot thick. Although this is claimed to be a Roman Wall, it fits the descriptions already written many centuries ago and there is no doubt that this wall was built by Llud as was written. The Romans may of repaired and extended sections of the wall during their occupation, but they were not the initial architects and builders of the wall.
Even more astounding is the fact that this hotel is redeveloping a site next door having bought the site they now intend to expand with this added extension. Now the interesting thing is that they have an archaeologist on the site because the builders have come across the foundations of another section of the wall once more.
Although, I wasn't allowed to take photographs the hole the builders had already dug was a good thirty to forty feet below street level. When you add another twenty to thirty feet of the wall above street level, the height of the actual wall could have been forty to fifty feet high in its day.
It would also have been a really massive sight to behold and would have presented many problems for anyone wanting to take London by storm. There are more sections of the wall still visible for the general public to see especially around Barbican near the Museum of London and surrounding streets.
It is claimed that not far from Ludgate, Llud also built himself a fine palace, which is the Bishop of London's palace.
What all this really means is that London was by its size the largest city not only in Britain but also in the whole of Europe.
If this is so then we have a motive for Caesars greed to take such a prize.
King Llud is also said to have been the first person to have measured Briton from top to bottom and coast to coast.
Llud had sons, so there must have been a woman in his life, sadly I have been unable to come up with the name of such a woman, it may well be that Llud had a number of ladies he shared his affections with.
Apart from building a palace for himself, Llud also invited others to build many fine houses within his walls that he had built. Hmmmm, now just a cotton-picking minute, who were the people that stated the Briton's lived in wooden thatched huts? Here, we have a direct statement of fine palaces being built and lived in.
It is precisely at this point that the Academics will start ranting and raving that the wall was built by the Romans, but was it? Now start putting your thinking caps on kiddiewinks and start reading about the Trojan war and how the Trojans were able to hold out against the armies of Greece for Ten Years. Brutus and his men would have realized the importance of defenses and would have taken measures to ensure they were well protected, they certainly had many years prior to Caesar's visit to construct it.
Didn't a huge wall protect Troy too? The Greek Army tried hard enough to get inside the huge wall and only gained entrance by using the famous Trojan horse.
Surely someone with Brutus would have known about the importance of walls keeping out the enemy? We are not talking about wild uneducated savages here, these were well-educated individuals who had seen and experienced beautiful palaces with marble columns and floors and knew how to protect themselves too.
Brutu's even married a Greek Princess, for god's sake she lived in style in palaces befitting her stature and rank. Her own father would not have lived in a mere shack so why would she? Are these so called academics taught nothing or is that what they are told to preach? Sometimes it is better not to be educated and know something than to be educated and know nothing.
They had a fluent knowledge of the Greek language, the Roman historians tell us, and so does Strabo. So why wouldn't they also have a knowledge of building fine palaces? Even in Llud's day London was a very busy city where merchants provided and sold merchandise from many countries including much Mediterranean produce.
In fact, there are several mentions that the Kings of Britain not only lived in fine palaces but used marble and had mosaic tiles floors with intricate designs placed on them too.
The British Museum has a fine example with the Christian religious symbol of Chi Rho featured plainly on it. Only a very brave man and powerful leader would have had such on the floor or walls of his house. Although, it is credited with being Roman, it is highly probable and not impossible that this came from one of the palaces that were once owned by a ruling King of Britain as it was there religion.
Even after the Claudian invasion, the Roman's, although they might have tried to convert the British to Christianity gave up and never intervened in the British way of religion. The Roman's had too many gods whilst the British only had one in which to put their faith in.
This explains why the Chi Rho mosaic now on prominent view to the public in the British Museum was allowed to be situated where it was and tolerated by the Roman's, if they ever saw it?
The truth is the great wall of London had already been built when the Roman's arrived and whilst they may of built onto and added to it and maybe repaired it in certain places they alone did not build it, the British did so it is high time this was recognized and renamed Llud's wall, who is named as the architect in so many documents.
Not everything that the British Museum states has to be correct. This is because they refuse to recognize anything that might be British or something they simply do not understand. Therefore they make these wild assumptions about it possibly being Roman or Saxon without even considering other possibilities.
I will give credit where it is due, I admire the honesty of the curator of the Museum of London who gave me detailed information regarding the statues of King Llud. I was hoping the Museum would place the statue in the museum in order for its future preservation and for the people. Some historians do have a genuine interest in the British Kings.
How many treasures in the museum connected to the Roman's are or were originally British? Who would know for sure? As the Briton's would have adopted Greek as well as Roman architecture before the Romans did gain a foothold.
The question remains, how many British building were mistaken as being Roman? No one in the Museum can give a definite answer to the question, and no one would dare answer it.
One cannot lay the blame on the staff and everyone working for museums. They are the guardians of the nations treasures. Unfortunately politics and politicians lay down the guidelines of what can and what cannot be stated. The same as what is acceptable to be taught in Britain's schools.
The Brut Tysylio and the Mabinogian state that Brutus who was a great great grandson of Aeneas originally founded London. Brutus died after a memorial reign of twenty-four years and was interred by the side of Imogene on the Bryn Gwyn (the White Mount). Which is believed to have been where the Tower of London now stands or in that area.
After the destruction of Troy around 1,200 B.C., Aeneas, born of a royal bloodline, fled with the remnants of his people and settled in Italy. There he married the daughter of Latinus, the king of the Latin's, and through this line later emerged the Roman Empire.
The grandson of Aeneas, a man called Brutus, had to flee Italy when he accidentally killed his father on a hunting trip. He arrived in Greece, on discovery of his royal lineage, dispossessed Trojans flocked to his command. He eventually married the daughter of the Greek king. He then commandeered a fleet and was visited by the goddess Diana and was sent to sail west until he found a land where his people would live in peace.
Brutus eventually reached the isle of Albion, landing at Totnes in Cornwall. He eventually founded the city of Trinovantum (New Troy), or Caer Troia as the Britons called it, around 1000 B.C. the city was dedicated to the goddess Diana by Brutus and he founded a temple to her.
Diabolical as it might sound to some, this is well documented and references to Brutas and his discoveries can be found all over the internet so this is not a figment of my imagination it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.
There are web sites that anyone can even trace the origins of people right back to Adam and Eve if you have the inclination and time to look for them. Knowledge in this day and age is so important if we are to find our real roots and who we really are.
King Llud (73 BC) re-named it "Caer-Llud" (Llud's Town). It later became known as London. When Llud died, he was buried near a gateway called Ludgate.
The re-naming of the city has been a disaster for British history. Not only have we forgotten our links with ancient Troy, but we have also given ground to the advocates of evolution, who don't want us to know that, through the Trojans, we can trace our ancestry all the way back to Noah. For the skeptics, Troy was found by Hienrich Schlieman a noted German archaeologist. There is no excuse for historians or anyone to say Troy was a myth and did not exist.
Now, this is where a very strange modern day treasure find comes into the story. Towards the end of 2003 British television station channel four screened a new series of finds made in Britain by metal detectorists called, 'Hidden Treasure'.
In one of the series of programs someone had found a large collection of coins. To make the program more interesting an archaeological dig took place.
It was during the dig that a huge quantity of bones were uncovered and on forensic testing they were found to be animal bones indicating that a huge feast had taken place at one time.
In those days a battle would be fought during the day and they would collect their dead and bury them during the night. It was more like something out of a loony tunes cartoon where Wiley Coyote would clock on in the morning for his shift while Ralph the devoted watch dog would stand guard over the flock of sheep during the day only to clock off at night fall.
After the fighting when the battle had been fought and won a great feast was held, this might not be in one spot alone but in many different towns and settlements.
The Welsh triads record that Caswallon ordered the slaughter of 120,000 animals for a great feast to celebrate the victory. With the discovery of the huge number of animal bones that were found by accident following an archaeological dig on a site where coins were found buried, it shows that the triads are true and more attention should be given to them for their accuracy.
Why, I asked again, did none of the archaeologists or historians at the British Museum connect this find to what happened in AD 55? Maybe, they stubbornly refuse to recognize these old documents which far from telling myths and fairy tales are telling the truth about what happened in the so call dark ages. It is high time that these so called academics paid more attention to these writings and old documents.
Many years ago I wrote an article about my travels to the British Museum in which I mentioned the Sutton Hoo burial ship and how the guides considered it to be Anglo Saxon. They even gave the name of the supposed King that had been buried in it as Raedwald.
Sticking my nose in where it wasn't wanted I suggested to the guide that the helmets could have belonged to King Arthur? The Romans described the Britons as being clean-shaven and having moustaches the same as depicted on the helmets?
Those two famous helmets, one for use in battle and one for ceremonial purposes can only describe the person wearing them as being clean shaven and having a moustache, exactly as described by Roman writers.
Could there have been a misdating of the burial? Look at the items found in the ship? Is that not the bejeweled sword that Arthur had called Excalibur?, as mentioned numerous times in numerous writings?
Even though the Sutton Hoo burial site might have nothing what so ever to do with King Arthur, the question remains that those helmets belonged to a British King who lived in the area or had requested to be buried at that particular spot. The big question is Who?
I bet that guide felt pretty awkward after I had said my piece. However, those in the group listened to my outburst, it must have had an impact and stopped some of the bullshit the guides at the museum were notorious at spreading. Shortly after that little episode at the British Museum, I wrote an article called treasure for the people, which was published and may have ruffled a few feathers.
Today, they still have the same exhibit, only this time they question who the King who was buried in the ship really was?
Strange that isn't it. They still think its Anglo Saxon though despite the fact that Caesar wrote that British built their ships using iron nails, they still think its Anglo Saxon and refuse to accept the British had a large navy at that particular period in time.
The Anglo Saxon's used wood to construct their ships and wooden dowels to join the wood together. It makes one wonder where all of a sudden the Anglo Saxons managed to start making ships using iron nails, or obtaining the iron with which to make the nails?
Iron nails were used in the construction of the ship they found at Sutton Hoo. Since then I have visited one of the iron mines where the iron might, just might, have been mined and smelted to make those nails. But that's another story.
Having discussed this matter with the noted historians Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett we all agree on this matter as other British nobles and Kings were buried in a similar fashion.
The burial sites of these nobles are known but owing to night hawks and unscrupulous individuals using metal detectors solely for their own greed and gain, with no interest of sharing the nations history and possible treasures with the people to whom the treasure really belongs we remain silent in order to protect these sites.
The time has come to forget about past political correctness about what should be and what shouldn't History belongs to the people. Today, we have a British army, a British passport, British birth certificate and we once had a British Empire.
The only people who call themselves English are those that follow 22 idiots chasing a dammed football around a field because of a team that calls itself English instead of British.
Look on any Roman coin, on the tail it states Britannia meaning Britain. This is Britain and those that were born here are British, like it or not, and you should be proud of that fact and that the famous Battle of Britain was fought against the nazi's in the second world war. That has never been described as a battle for England. Its time to stop the bullshit.
If the truth were really known, almost everyone now has British blood running through their veins owing to intermarriage over the years between the Anglo Saxons and the British (Welsh).
There are a few exceptions to the rule because I forgot to mention the Scots and the Irish who have also interbred thanks to the women of Britain, England, Ireland and Scotland who we can thank for bearing mans children and raising them. The men, well when an opportunity arises, don't tell me your going to walk away from the worlds oldest sin, because it was installed in your genes ions ago.
Even the George Cross they use as an emblem is stolen from the British. At a famous landmark in Wales that attracts visitors from all over the world are the ruins of a very old church and monastery. Although not a great deal remains, there are a few very old tiles depicting knights on horseback.
They all carry a shield bearing a very special insignia, which happens to be the St.George Cross. Owing to souvenir hunters and thieves I am not prepared to disclosed where the tiles can be found.
Not that I want them for myself, they are part of British history and belong to the public for all to see and should remain untouched for future generations to see and admire. They would be far better off in the custody of a museum.
Even today, London, still has connections with King Arthur. Take a short walk up the strand, just outside the Law Courts in the middle of the road is an eternal symbol that was used by Uthyr Pendragon himself and that is the Dragon, which was also the symbol of Britain. Situated on almost every bridge you will see London's coat of arms and dragons.
Almost every street within the city proudly bears the same emblem together with many of the bollards. In fact its almost impossible to go anywhere in London where you are unable to catch a glimpse of it.
The Brutus stone or London stone.
Only a fragment of the original stone survives, the stone is said to have been bought there by Brutas all the way from Troy; he was supposed to have set it up in his New Troy (i.e. London) as an alter to Diana..
The London Stone has always had a special significance, marking the sacred center of London. It can be found behind railings in a wall if the Bank of China, almost opposite Cannon Street Station. I recently visited the spot and had a bit of difficulty finding it.
Some people think the Stone can be traced back to Druid times, perhaps as a Pagan Ritual Altar or a sacrificial stone. This was certainly the belief of the poet William Blake who, in 'To the Jews', imagined the groaning of the execution victims.
There's even a legend that claims it to be the same stone from which King Arthur pulled the sword, (although there are several places in Britain to make the same claim). Certainly it seems that this area of London has long been significant. In 1840, excavations to build sewers at Bush Lane, next to Cannon Street Station uncovered ancient remains of large walls belonging to a pre-Roman building, perhaps some kind of palace.
Now this is interesting because it is recorded that both Bruta's and King Llud built Palaces in London, could this be one of those building so hurriedly covered up and hushed up, so the public could not learn the truth about their history?
The early inhabitants of Britain, who arrived more than a thousand years before the Roman invasion, were the scattered remnants of the fallen city of Troy. They founded a city on the Thames and called it "Troia Newydd" (New Troy) which later became "Troynovant" or "Trinovantum".
Brutus, King of the Britons
The story begins with the city of Troy in Asia Minor (now eastern Turkey), near the Bosphorus. The Trojans were at war against the Greeks, and they thought they had won. They found a large wooden horse outside the city that the Greeks had left behind, and they brought it into the city as a trophy, not knowing that it was full of Greek soldiers. During the night, when the Trojans were all asleep, the Greeks came out of the horse and opened the city gates, so that the Greek armies entered and destroyed the city. This happened during the reign of Priam, the last king of Troy, about 1182 BC.The Trojans and Dardanians were allies, and there were intermarriages between their royal families. Aeneas was the son of Anchises, the leader of the Dardanian army. He married Creusa, the daughter of Priam, King of Troy, and they had a son called Ascanius. Aeneas and Creusa were third cousins, and their common ancestor was Tros, who founded the city of Troy. When the city was destroyed, Aeneas escaped with his father Anchises and his young son Ascanius, together with many other refugees, but Creusa got lost in the confusion. They first went to Africa, and then to Italy where they were well received by Latinus, king of the Latin's. Aeneas married Lavinia, the daughter of Latinus and they had a son called Silvius.
The journey of Aeneas to Italy, and his assimilation among the Latin's, was later to become the subject of Virgil's Aneid, written between 30 and 19 BC, so that he became immortalized in Roman literature.
Ascanius married and had a son, also called Silvius, who had his way with Lavinia's niece and got her pregnant. She gave birth to a son called Brutus, but she died during childbirth. When Brutus was 15 years old, he was out hunting with his father, and accidentally killed him while shooting an arrow at a deer. Thus he was considered to have killed both his father and his mother, although unintentionally, and was banished from Italy.
Brutus went to Greece where his royal lineage was recognized by Pandrasus, king of the Greeks, and by the downtrodden Trojans who had escaped from Troy and were living as an under-class among the Greeks. The Trojans adopted him as their leader and assembled themselves into an army.
He went to Pandrasus and asked for their liberty, so that they could live as equals with the Greeks, or else be given assistance to go to other lands. Pendrasus was enraged by this request and went to war against the Trojans, but Brutus prevailed against him.
Pendrasus was anxious to achieve a peace of some sort, but he recognized that the war had led to feelings of resentment that would make it impossible for the Trojans to continue living among the Greeks. He therefore decided that the departure of the Trojans was the only possible option, and he furnished them with ships so that they could leave. He also gave his daughter Ignoge to Brutus, to be his wife.
Brutus and his army sailed away and stopped in a few parts of Africa, and then they sailed through the Pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar) and arrived in Gaul where they picked up some Trojan exiles.
They fought some battles against the Gauls, then returned to their ships and sailed to their intended destination, an almost empty island to the north of Gaul known as "Alban" (Albion), which means "White Island".
Those who came with Brutus were called "Britons", and the island became known as "Britain". The date of their arrival is calculated to be 1074 BC, according to a footnote by Peter Roberts in his translation of Tysilio's "Chronicle of the Kings of Britain"
Brutus was a Trojan on his father's side and Latin on his mother's side. He was married to a Greek, so his descendants were Trojan, Latin and Greek. He was the first of a long line of kings, some of who intermarried with other European royal families.
Bruta's originally landed on the coast of Devon. Totnes on the dart is twelve miles from Torbay, which is the oldest seaport in South Devon. Here we find the closest evidence to Bruta's possible and a custom handed down from time immemorial and was last observed on May the sixth 1910, when the mayor read a proclamation of King George.
There is a stone embedded in the road with a sign above it saying, 'This is the Brutas stone.' The tradition being that this marks the spot where a Trojan Prince set foot after he landed in Britain after the fall of Troy in 1185 B.C.
There is also another Bruta's stone situated in Cannon Street In the City of London that Bruta's is also said to have found and built up as a fine city. That stone is still to be seen in Cannon Street not far for the underground station.
It is said, 'That should the stone disappear London will fall.' Today it is preserved behind iron bars and protected by glass to stop individuals touching it and souvenir parts of it.
It is also highly unlikely that even after the Claudius invasion of AD 43 that the Romans could have built such a city in the given time between the Boadacea rebellions of AD60. The Romans were in fact building up other places such as Colchester (Camulodunum) and Verulamium (St.Alban's).
Archaeologists and historians today forget about King Llud and what he did to fortify London despite strong documentary evidence elsewhere that clearly states that King Llud built the wall. Even today, Time team and its band of back yard historians and archaeologists, when ever they come across anything they cant explain automatically jump on the old Roman, Anglo Saxon horseshit for answers and explanations.
King Llud had two sons, one called Afarwy, (Androgeus) who was the Duke of Kent, Teneufan (Tenuantius) Duke of Kent.
It appears that Caswallon, Llud's brother had a mistress called Fflur (Flora) This lady was abducted and taken to Gaul. It appears that the jealous Afarwy was responsible and sought refuge with the Romans in Gaul. There is another story that Cassivellaunus was voted by all the tribe leaders to be King to lead the Britons in the fight against Caesar.
Arfarwy considered that was his right and in a fit of rage sought vengeance against his uncle by joining Caesar in Gaul.
Arfarwy having struck a deal with Caesar that once Caesar had conquered Britain, Afarwy would be installed as the new king. Tysylio states that Arfarwy's secret pact with Caesar is that he would open the gates of London to the Romans in return for being made King himself.
Thus Caesar had a second attempt to subdue Britain only to be subdued himself in the process.
Arfarwy was taken back to Gaul together with others. Caesar never returned to make a third attempt at making Britain as part of the Roman Empire. Arfarwy is mentioned in the Welsh Triads as being Britains greatest traitor.
Caesar glossed over his writings to pacify the senate but disgruntled legionnaires upon their return to Rome started to reveal the truth, which eventually became public knowledge. Eventually on the ides of March Caesar was murdered.
The hierarchy in Rome must have known what had really taken place for there is no attempt to send troops or statesmen to Briton for another 96 years.
I wonder if you went into any modern school in London and asked a classroom of say thirteen or fourteen year olds, 'Who founded London? No one in that classroom would be able to give the correct answer. To me that is a disgraceful state of affairs. Every Londoner or everyone who calls themselves such should know the answer because it is part of their history and heritage,
Brentford situated further up the River Thames from Westminster also lays claim to fighting between Cassivellaunus and Caesar in 54 BC and have erected a monument to him to remember the event.
The monument is situated outside the county court where an archaeological dig took place before the new building was erected. Numerous finds were found.
Brentford is one of the few places where it would have been easy for Caesars army to cross owing to the many islands in the River. At low tide it is possible for them to have crossed here.
Further evidence of there being a fortified ford in place here was discovered in 1909 when rows of palisades of oak were discovered and excavated. A plaque on the same monument tells the story along with other events of notable historical interest. It is strange that Brentford with it's importance of the Caesarian connections that a local museum does not exist. However the publican opposite the old iron bridge remembers stories of how the Romans crossed near the bridge. The one thing that puzzles me is that the Romans were advancing onto St.Alban's (Verulamium), maybe there is a confusion of dates here. Maybe this was the Claudian advance of the Romans, because it was written by others that Caesar showed his back to the Briton's at Trinovantum.
As Caesar and his forces left the Briton, Casswallon finally realized that Arfarwy had kidnapped his beloved fleur. Wasting no time Casswallon gathered up his forces and set after set after the scoundrel. So, we have all the elements of a modern day Hollywood spectacular just like Ben Hur except the events that took place here were real and well documented.
Caswallon or as the Romans called him Cassivellaunus is a real hero apart from his royal heritage. His place in history is assured as the person who defied Caesar and defeated him. When Caesar left the shores of Britain Rome had no further interest in the place for nearly 100 years.
Caswallon had held back the advances of the Roman Empire, Caesar returned home the all conquering hero only for the defeat to slowly leak out from the legionnaires and those that were there to witness the event.
Caesar had far more to lose, his name, his reputation, his credibility. He was Rome's most important leader and to return suffering defeat would have meant his demise with the senate. In order to cover up his defeat he had to gloss over events as they happened.
The one thing he could not explain away was the loss of so many members of his army.
The True story of Llud, Caswallon, Nennius and the British people who lived and fought Julius Caesar is a very powerful one. The proof that this event did take place is scattered all over the internet. Most of it researched with the very documents I have already mentioned.
Casswallon eventually passes on and is succeeded by the rightful heir to the throne Teneufan followed by his son Cynvelyn (Cunobelius).
It is said that Cynvelyn visited Rome and met the Emperor Augustus. This claim was born out by an archeological dig on the Lexdon tumulus in 1922-24. Here a medallion of the Roman Emperor Augustus was found in what is suspected as the tomb of Cynvelyn. It is thought that the Emperor gave it himself to Cynvelyn.
What these King's actually did for Britain was to hold back the advance of the Roman Empire by almost 100 years which in itself was a remarkable achievement. The time for these forgotten hero's has come for their complete recognition, they deserve it. It is our History and our heritage of which all Briton's today should be proud, including that bunch of Oxford Cambridge skeptics that class themselves as being educated.
Sorry I don't fit into their category I was educated in a grammar school, my teachers were moron's. If I had not delved into the past to find out the truth for myself I would be classed as another moron. It should not be like that. We all deserve the best education from the best teachers the government can provide.
Education today is vital and must be factual. Living a lie is dangerous for the very structure of society is based on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. The day of reckoning is fast approaching. What will the academics claim when new discoveries are made? Fraud is the first, manufactured is the second, fiction the third.
So, where does all my research fit into all of this, is it fiction. No flaming way, Are my writings a fraud? I am only repeating what evidence is available so where's the fraud and where is the profit?
There is no profit in the truth for gods sake, the only motive is to inform and enlighten the general public of the truth. They of all people as British Citizens they are entitled to know their history and heritage as well.
It is only a matter of time now before the Oxford Cambridge Academics finally will concede to the truth as written and laid down in the Mabinogian, the triads, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Nennius and Gilda's and others who have seen the light and know the truth.
Their credibility is in doubt, they are in danger of losing the plot, too much has been revealed, the truth is known they are hiding now behind false hopes and there is no way they can extract themselves except from finally accepting the truth.
There is an empty plinth in Trafalgar Square just waiting for the right person or persons to be placed upon it.
That plinth really belongs to those that fought for Britain's freedom and independence so long ago. The time has come for the academics to rethink their logic. Others like myself are doing their own research digging up cans of worms just like this. Today, we want the truth, we expect the truth and nothing less. The time has come to put your thinking caps on.
It's time for, "TIME TEAM," to clean up it's act, next time they come across the ruins of an old church, think first before jumping to conclusions and bellowing out Roman or Anglo Saxon. Next time you find foundations of part of the London Wall or Palaces that were not exactly roman, do not cover it up in haste explore and pass on the knowledge you gain to the public.
Today we live in a world of Knowledge, the demand for the truth is all around us. There were many British Kings that followed Llud, Caswallon, Nennius and many other's including King Arthur. They all deserve their rightful place in history.
Royalty did not start with the Anglo Saxon's. It was alive and thriving in Britain long before they or William the conqueror took over in 1066. Historian's who fail to delve beyond this time barrier through to the dark age and beyond are only failing themselves and the general public who have a thirst for knowledge and now demand answers.
Fortunately in this world of high technology, the information gap is narrowing, people now have access to material they never dreamed of years ago. Even libraries these days owing to budget cuts fail to provide the information that should be freely available to everyone not the select few.
I have attempted to uncover the past and put it back into it's true perspective. I researched this following almost every possible lead I could lay my hands on. I have provided photographs to substantiate my writings. Only you the reader, can decided with all the available evidence I have provided to decide is this fact or fiction?
Thus Caesar had a second attempt to subdue Britain only to be subdued himself in the process.
Arfarwy was taken back to Gaul together with others. Caesar never returned to make a third attempt at making Britain as part of the Roman Empire. Arfarwy is mentioned in the Welsh Triads as being Britains greatest traitor.
Caesar glossed over his writings to pacify the senate but disgruntled legionnaires upon their return to Rome started to reveal the truth, which eventually became public knowledge. Eventually on the ides of March Caesar was murdered.
The hierarchy in Rome must have known what had really taken place for there is no attempt to send troops or statesmen to Briton for another 96 years.
I wonder if you went into any modern school in London and asked a classroom of say thirteen or fourteen year olds, 'Who founded London? No one in that classroom would be able to give the correct answer. To me that is a disgraceful state of affairs. Every Londoner or everyone who calls themselves such should know the answer because it is part of their history and heritage,
Brentford situated further up the River Thames from Westminster also lays claim to fighting between Cassivellaunus and Caesar in 54 BC and have erected a monument to him to remember the event.
The monument is situated outside the county court where an archaeological dig took place before the new building was erected. Numerous finds were found.
Brentford is one of the few places where it would have been easy for Caesars army to cross owing to the many islands in the River. At low tide it is possible for them to have crossed here.
Further evidence of there being a fortified ford in place here was discovered in 1909 when rows of palisades of oak were discovered and excavated. A plaque on the same monument tells the story along with other events of notable historical interest. It is strange that Brentford with it's importance of the Caesarian connections that a local museum does not exist. However the publican opposite the old iron bridge remembers stories of how the Romans crossed near the bridge. The one thing that puzzles me is that the Romans were advancing onto St.Alban's (Verulamium), maybe there is a confusion of dates here. Maybe this was the Claudian advance of the Romans, because it was written by others that Caesar showed his back to the Briton's at Trinovantum.
As Caesar and his forces left the Briton, Casswallon finally realized that Arfarwy had kidnapped his beloved fleur. Wasting no time Casswallon gathered up his forces and set after set after the scoundrel. So, we have all the elements of a modern day Hollywood spectacular just like Ben Hur except the events that took place here were real and well documented.
Caswallon or as the Romans called him Cassivellaunus is a real hero apart from his royal heritage. His place in history is assured as the person who defied Caesar and defeated him. When Caesar left the shores of Britain Rome had no further interest in the place for nearly 100 years.
Caswallon had held back the advances of the Roman Empire, Caesar returned home the all conquering hero only for the defeat to slowly leak out from the legionnaires and those that were there to witness the event.
Caesar had far more to lose, his name, his reputation, his credibility. He was Rome's most important leader and to return suffering defeat would have meant his demise with the senate. In order to cover up his defeat he had to gloss over events as they happened.
The one thing he could not explain away was the loss of so many members of his army.
The True story of Llud, Caswallon, Nennius and the British people who lived and fought Julius Caesar is a very powerful one. The proof that this event did take place is scattered all over the internet. Most of it researched with the very documents I have already mentioned.
Casswallon eventually passes on and is succeeded by the rightful heir to the throne Teneufan followed by his son Cynvelyn (Cunobelius).
It is said that Cynvelyn visited Rome and met the Emperor Augustus. This claim was born out by an archeological dig on the Lexdon tumulus in 1922-24. Here a medallion of the Roman Emperor Augustus was found in what is suspected as the tomb of Cynvelyn. It is thought that the Emperor gave it himself to Cynvelyn.
What these King's actually did for Britain was to hold back the advance of the Roman Empire by almost 100 years which in itself was a remarkable achievement. The time for these forgotten hero's has come for their complete recognition, they deserve it. It is our History and our heritage of which all Briton's today should be proud, including that bunch of Oxford Cambridge skeptics that class themselves as being educated.
Sorry I don't fit into their category I was educated in a grammar school, my teachers were moron's. If I had not delved into the past to find out the truth for myself I would be classed as another moron. It should not be like that. We all deserve the best education from the best teachers the government can provide.
Education today is vital and must be factual. Living a lie is dangerous for the very structure of society is based on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. The day of reckoning is fast approaching. What will the academics claim when new discoveries are made? Fraud is the first, manufactured is the second, fiction the third.
So, where does all my research fit into all of this, is it fiction. No flaming way, Are my writings a fraud? I am only repeating what evidence is available so where's the fraud and where is the profit?
There is no profit in the truth for gods sake, the only motive is to inform and enlighten the general public of the truth. They of all people as British Citizens they are entitled to know their history and heritage as well.
It is only a matter of time now before the Oxford Cambridge Academics finally will concede to the truth as written and laid down in the Mabinogian, the triads, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Nennius and Gilda's and others who have seen the light and know the truth.
Their credibility is in doubt, they are in danger of losing the plot, too much has been revealed, the truth is known they are hiding now behind false hopes and there is no way they can extract themselves except from finally accepting the truth.
There is an empty plinth in Trafalgar Square just waiting for the right person or persons to be placed upon it.
That plinth really belongs to those that fought for Britain's freedom and independence so long ago. The time has come for the academics to rethink their logic. Others like myself are doing their own research digging up cans of worms just like this. Today, we want the truth, we expect the truth and nothing less. The time has come to put your thinking caps on.
It's time for, "TIME TEAM," to clean up it's act, next time they come across the ruins of an old church, think first before jumping to conclusions and bellowing out Roman or Anglo Saxon. Next time you find foundations of part of the London Wall or Palaces that were not exactly roman, do not cover it up in haste explore and pass on the knowledge you gain to the public.
Today we live in a world of Knowledge, the demand for the truth is all around us. There were many British Kings that followed Llud, Caswallon, Nennius and many other's including King Arthur. They all deserve their rightful place in history.
Royalty did not start with the Anglo Saxon's. It was alive and thriving in Britain long before they or William the conqueror took over in 1066. Historian's who fail to delve beyond this time barrier through to the dark age and beyond are only failing themselves and the general public who have a thirst for knowledge and now demand answers.
Fortunately in this world of high technology, the information gap is narrowing, people now have access to material they never dreamed of years ago. Even libraries these days owing to budget cuts fail to provide the information that should be freely available to everyone not the select few.
I have attempted to uncover the past and put it back into it's true perspective. I researched this following almost every possible lead I could lay my hands on. I have provided photographs to substantiate my writings. Only you the reader, can decided with all the available evidence I have provided to decide is this fact or fiction?