The Following is a short extract from a book written by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot which exposes that Geoffrey of Monmouth was a nom de plume used by Henry Blois. It also shows that the links between the first Grail stories by Robert de Boron and Chretien de Troyes are directly linked through Henry Blois' relation to his nephew's wives at the court of Champagne and the name of the Grail's instigator Master Blihis. It is this link which links Perlesvaus to Glastonbury and the Island of Avalon to the abbey at Glastonbury through the composition of HRB.
You can also see the new 2019 updated website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6
You can also see the new 2019 updated website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6
If we start
with the many versions of the Merlin prophecies and conclude Henry Blois has written them, which I feel I
have exposed in this exposé…. we know Henry Blois must have written HRB (with the nom de plume of Geoffrey of Monmouth)….
because it is painfully obvious the author of the prophecies is the author of
the HRB and VM and the JC version of the Merlin prophecys. Once we understand that it is Henry Blois,
we can then conclude that an array of misinformation has been proffered
regarding Geoffrey of Monmouth. We can now also clearer understand the
circumstances under which HRB was composed…. and the misinformation was meant
to mislead to mask Henry’s authorship.
We then should ask, what other material has been tampered with?.... and we find that Caradoc’s life of Gildas puts a chivalric Arthur at Glastonbury. Because it is stated that on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, (in life of Gildas) that Arthur is brought into association with Glastonbury, we can deduce Henry Blois is the instigator because Guinevere is Henry’s invention in HRB. So then, we understand how the Modena archivolt has an engraving of an episode from that book and we know Henry Blois must have passed by Modena on several occasions. We can conclude therefore, that the trips over the snowy mountains, the Alps, and Aravian range (mentioned in the prophecies) are all constructs of a person having made the trip to Rome. We can also understand that Wace’s allusion to the ‘Bernard’ pass is from the same mind along with other expansions which parallel the author’s thinking in HRB which indicate both are one and the same author.
We then should ask, what other material has been tampered with?.... and we find that Caradoc’s life of Gildas puts a chivalric Arthur at Glastonbury. Because it is stated that on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, (in life of Gildas) that Arthur is brought into association with Glastonbury, we can deduce Henry Blois is the instigator because Guinevere is Henry’s invention in HRB. So then, we understand how the Modena archivolt has an engraving of an episode from that book and we know Henry Blois must have passed by Modena on several occasions. We can conclude therefore, that the trips over the snowy mountains, the Alps, and Aravian range (mentioned in the prophecies) are all constructs of a person having made the trip to Rome. We can also understand that Wace’s allusion to the ‘Bernard’ pass is from the same mind along with other expansions which parallel the author’s thinking in HRB which indicate both are one and the same author.
So, if
we follow the Glastonbury connection, because Henry was Abbot there…. we find Malmesbury’s
book (DA) which convinces us that Avalon is Glastonbury. The book was not only
dedicated to Henry Blois, but the name Avalon was indeed invented by Henry
Blois…. the author of HRB. Then, we must understand that the Melkin prophecy,
which we know is accurate to within yards, has the name Avalon on it and yet we
now know Henry has transposed that name from a Burgundian town and implanted it
in HRB and replaced the name of Ineswitrin on the Melkin Prophecy. Therefore,
if the prophecy’s directions are accurate and the name of the island which it
locates is deemed invented, we should ask: which island name did the prophecy
originally have on it? Then we find that an Island mentioned by William of
Malmesbury is donated to Glastonbury in 601 AD and one can assume that Island
is located in Devon as it was donated by its King. If the data which constructs
the line (when decoded from the prophecy), locates an island in Devon called
Burgh Island, we can assume that the chances are that it could be Ineswitrin.
When we then look at the etymology of Ineswitrin, we find that it means
possibly ‘white tin Island’. We should also ask, (if we understand that
Ineswitrin is in Devon)….who might it be, and in what tract, are we misdirected
to believe that Ineswitrin is synonymous with Glastonbury? We find it is in
Caradoc’s life of Gildas and the book
of DA which was dedicated to Henry Blois. We also find out that Caradoc died
c.1130. We find also that an episode
from Caradoc’s book is found on the Modena archivolt before 1140 just a year
after the discovery of Primary Historia
at Bec. So, if we look to the author of HRB and life of Gildas we find he is a bishop making regular trips passing
Modena with ample wherewithal and enough clout to have commissioned the
engraving which relates to the kidnap episode at Glastonbury.
Joining the dots out of pure common sense, we
find that Diodorus describes an Island which traded in tin on the south west
peninsula and his description of an Island matches Burgh Island. We have
confirmation that Burgh Island is the Island of Ictis to which Pytheas
referred, because tin Ingots of the same date are found two miles away with an
account from Strabo which explains how the Ingots came to be found at the head
of the Erm estuary. The confirmation that Burgh Island is Ictis is deduced
simply because a Phoenician ship wrecked itself in order to preserve the
‘secrecy of Ictis’. Once Ictis is established as a tin trading Island in Devon
we remember that Joseph of Arimathea by Dumnonian/Cornish tradition was a tin
merchant. Once we establish that Burgh Island (Ictis) and Joseph have a
connection through the tin trade, we also remember that Melkin’s prophecy
directs us to the same Island purporting to contain his sepulchre…. with an
amazing display of geometric precision. Once we establish why this Island has a
connection to Joseph through two different sources i.e. tin trade and Melkin
Prophecy; we then ask how is it that Avalon and Joseph are linked and we find
that the author of the book HRB who first mentions Avalon is the abbot of
Glastonbury, the same place where a prophecy is found which links Avalon to
Joseph. Glastonbury is also linked to Joseph very early on by Perlesvaus and
Robert de Boron’s allusion to vaus Avaron.
If we follow this trail, we can see there is no natural connection between King
Arthur and Joseph (except they are both linked to Glastonbury and Avalon) and
we should then ask; in what material do we find this connection to them both?
We see it in DA as both are connected to Glastonbury. We can also grasp that
the Grail literature which anachronistically joins Arthur to Joseph emanates
from the Blois region and its provenance can be connected to close family
relations of the Abbot of Glastonbury in Champagne, who are known as the patron
of Chrétien. This literature speaks of the Grail which is a vessel which
contains the Lord’s blood and it is connected to Joseph and Arthur in
continental literature, but also in a tract called the Perlesvaus. This tract
relates to the Old church at Glastonbury and its lead roof. It mentions in the
colophon that Guinevere and Arthur are buried at Glastonbury…. but more
importantly, it speaks of the vessel which is also related to the mysterious ‘duo fassula’ in the prophecy of Melkin
at Glastonbury. We then find that features of the prophecy relate to the
composition of the HRB in that the Island of Avalon which has been substituted
by name in the only extant example of the Prophecy of Melkin is named as the
mysterious island where Arthur is last seen. This island, as we all know, turns
out to be Glastonbury, established for the naïve by the existence of a bogus
‘leaden cross’. The cross reiterates spuriously (redundantly naming) where it
is…. in Avalon; not forgetting, Avalon is Henry’s own invention.
Not only does the Melkin prophecy portend the
finding of Joseph’s relics in Avalon, but we are led to believe (by it being
named as the last place Arthur is seen), that King Arthur (if we are naïve) was
also buried and found in Avalon. We see that the Grail object is modelled on
the duo fassula (if we have our eyes
open).Also the search for the relics of Joseph, (the whole point of the
prophecy of Melkin) suggests that the prophecy is encoded and involves the
locating of an island; followed by a search for the tomb itself. Both the enigmatic duo fassula is mirrored in Grail literature and the search for the
same object in la quête du GraalorChrétien de Troyes Perceval orle Conte du Graal. Here
it is presented as a quest for the same enigmatic object that is said by the
prophecy to be in the tomb along with Joseph’s relics. Because Henry Blois is
employing the prophecy as an inspirational template, he too invents a totally
fatuous semblance of a hidden meaning (mirroring the decryption of the
prophecy) in which the gullible search for meaning in the Grail procession.[1]
This vast array of linked material, which, by association is known as the Matter of Britain (as we have covered by
repetition and I hope not tedium), and looking from every perspective
throughout these pages…. has two factors which are inextricably linked:
Glastonbury and Henry Blois. The one extraordinary piece of this entire puzzle
is wrapped up in the book of DA which coalesces what would seemingly be
disparate associations and we know this book was dedicated to and interpolated
by Henry Blois. We know it could only be
him who transformed his own invented name of Avalon to be commensurate with the
physical Glastonbury because Gerald says the location of Arthur’s body was
previously known and was written in Glastonbury annals.
If we
ignore the ignorant decrees of the experts…. it could only be Henry Blois (who
has the copy of DA) who lets everyone know the location, because whoever
planted the body knew where he had located it between the pyramids. It is for
this reason Arthur and Guinevere are said to be buried in Avalon, in Perlesvaus
(a tract written before the disinterment of Arthur). It could only have been Henry
Blois who knew that Avalon was situated at Glastonbury in the interim years
(where it becomes widely accepted) between his death and Arthur’s disinterment.
Therefore, it has to be Henry Blois who had the leaden cross constructed (which
ludicrously states in which location it is, when it is discovered) and who
pointed out where to find the grave. It does not take a huge amount of
imagination to understand that his inspiration for manufacturing Arthur’s grave
to be found in the future is based on the prospect of finding Joseph in the
future…. spelled out in the Melkin Prophecy. It was originally this prophecy
which spoke of an Island named ‘White tin Island’ (which we know exists in
Devon because of the 601 charter)…. that Joseph’s relics are said to exist
there (and the reason for them being there is because Joseph was a tin
merchant). Therefore, to those who use common sense, the prophecy of Melkin is
not a fake, but was extant in the era of Henry Blois.
What has prevented these events coming to
light is simply the arrogance of the scholars. They have made some money on the
gravy train regurgitating the same drivel from generation to generation
postulating untenable positions employing a method peculiar to the modern
medievalist scholars much like a pick and mix. Some scholars have positively
made a cottage industry of inviting all and sundry to contribute papers which they
compile into books which agree with their views. I do not pretend accuracy in
every statement, far from it; but I have put forward an explanation because I
have understood that no scholar wants the gravy train to stop. Without an
explanation provided to the scholars, common sense cannot prevail.Scholars will
continue to hide behind an impenetrable wall of learning, which, up until now,
has had to be accepted because they are supposedly the experts.
There
are three critical premises upon which modern scholarship’s erroneous edifice
is built and when these a prioris are
not accepted (founded upon an unclear chronology of events), a clearer picture
emerges.
Firstly, if one does not insist that a
mention of Arthur’s name in DA could only transpire by interpolation after the
exhumation of his bones, the answer to several questions become more
discernible because several solutions become tenable…. which, by erroneous
chronology had been previously denied. For instance: Why is Gerald saying there
is previous knowledge of the location; why dig in that spot etc. If we accept
that the location was pointed out in which Arthur was buried with his wife, in
between the pyramids…. we have to accept it is highly probable it was Henry
Blois (once we have allowed this possibility). There is no rational reason why
the interpolation in DA mentioning the location of Arthur’s grave could not
have been in DA before his disinterment. The reason we should allow this
possibility is there is no other information surrounding the dig given in DA.
If the mention of Arthur’s gravesite had been a later interpolation (after the
disinterment) some circumstances would have been related and certainly the
cross would have been mentioned. Henry Blois provided the only information he
could before the event (while remaining incognito). The entire account would
not have been left in the hands of Gerald to relate. Once this position is
understood….it opens a multitude of positions concerning not only chronology of
the events but also who did what and who wrote what when.
Secondly, if there is no intransigence and
insistence that Avalon was not previously know as Glastonbury before the leaden
cross was discovered, this then allows that in the interim between Henry Blois
death and the disinterment…. an understanding of Avalon as Glastonbury at least
was known at the abbey because it was written in DA. It then becomes possible
to explain how it is that the forerunner of Perlesvaus, said to be in Latin and
written at Avalon, which tells of Arthur and Guinevere’s burial at Glastonbury,
could have existed prior to the disinterment. This, therefore, enables us also
to implicate Henry Blois as the original inventor of Grail material which ties
the Grail, Avalon, Arthur and Joseph all to Glastonbury. But, more importantly
to Master Blehis…. said by Gerald to have lived ‘shortly before our time.’[2]
But this position confutes entirely Logario’s synopsis of events and allows
that Joseph in Perlesvaus could pre-exist Arthur’s exhumation and of course to
be present in chapters one and two of DA in 1171.
Thirdly, the most despicable act of
negligence and intransigence by modern scholarship is the insistence that
Melkin’s prophecy is a fake. On this subject in particular there are only
haughty pronouncements of hot air. The denial of the geometry found in the
prophecy of Melkin could only be maintained by someone with a good reason to
reject it; and it is not the geometry which lacks veracity. It is simply not possible to possess so many
distinctions after ones name, and not understand that the geometry locates
Burgh Island; and also to be cognisant of the fact that an island in Devon was
donated to Glastonbury. The real crux to finding the solution to the Matter of Britain is that any
investigator has to realise that there has been single-minded fraud at
Glastonbury and this same mind has proliferated Grail lore and Arthuriana to
the continent. The general consensus of scholarship which promotes a view that
many different monks over time each added his own interpolation into DA and
miraculously lore just evolved by a fortuitous
convergence of factors is shown to be incorrect and fatuous.
This exposé may have seemed like a rant
against scholarship and expertise and it is plain to see I excel in neither. My
attribute is that I am not a scholar and as I said at the beginning…. what I
have said is verifiable in that Joseph of Arimathea is on Burgh Island along with
his son and DNA tests will show that. Now, the reader may enquire how it is
that I know Joseph’s relics exist there. There are two ways of answering this
and neither would you find credible apart from the explanation found in these
pages. My credibility lies in the fact that hopefully the reader has been able
to follow my explanation of how the Matter
of Britain transpired. The proof is in the pie. But unless one presents the
facts so that scholars can have it explained to them; Joseph and Jesus’ relics will
never see the light of day and the Roman religion will continue to perpetuate
the lie.
The Reverend F. U. Lot.
[1] The Grail
procession is a fatuous invention with seemingly mystical relevance, which in
fact uses two other icons, the Menorah and the lance mentionedin the Gospel of
John 19:34, One of the soldiers, however,
made a thrust at His (Jesus) side with a lance, and immediately blood and water flowed out.Henry
recognises the duo fassula as a
religious object but has no idea what it is except from the allusion to two
vessels in the prophecy. Howeve, at the battle of Ascalon where Henry’s father
was kille, Raymond of Aguilers carried the relic of the Holy Lance that
had been discovered recently at Antioch.
[2] The passage
in which Gerald of Wales refers to Bledhericus, famosus ille fabulator
who tempora nostra paulo praevenit, was written c. 1194. So, Gerald has no idea the man who he refers
to who had died 20 years previously, was in fact his patron in his youth.
No comments:
Post a Comment