While Guy is peddling the French
romantic fiction of a would-be King pulling a sword from a stone,
mentored by a grey haired wizard called Merlin; the truth of King
Arthur makes for a much better blockbuster. (Does anyone know Mel
Gibson's number?)
The first King Arthur was
born during the 4th Century, son of Magnus Maximus, himself the
son of Constantine the Great. Born 355AD and dead by 388AD, King
Arthur I fought the Romans and went down within the annuals of
the Welsh Khumry as a great and illustrious king.
Later in the 6th Century King Arthur II
was born, of which so many of today's legends are based on. King
Arthur II was born in 503AD and died in 579AD, famed for fighting the
Saxons, son of King Maurice, who himself was the son of the Paramount
King Pendragon King Theoderic.
Both King Arthur I and II were directly
related to each other, both in a long line of Kings reaching back to
the first King of Britain, King Brutus and further back to the Holy
Family, descended from Anne, sister of Mary, mother of Jesus Christ
himself. King Brutus, a great grandson of Aeneas of Troy, came
to the Island of Britain around 500BC.
Since the beginning of the 18th Century
AD there has been a major suppression of British History. To the
academic community there is only the tunnel vision mentality of Roman
Britain, or Saxon Britain, or Viking Britain, and if any major finds
are made by archaeologists they inevitably end up in one of the three
mentioned categories, heaven forbid they be Khumric-British - of
which there are VAST amounts of evidence and written material to
blown the fake history away.
Further reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment