The Legend of the Grail and the Matter of Britain

Please go to the new 2018 updated website of the whole book at http://www.islandofavalon.com/


The following material is an extract from the book titled 'The Island of Avalon' in two volumes by the Reverend Francis Uriah Lot.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Island-Avalon-concerning-Geoffrey-ebook/dp/B011NWHSR6

The Grail legends

Much has been written on the Grail legends and the Grail’s connection to King Arthur and Joseph of Arimathea. The conundrum has been the connection between the Grail, Arthur and Joseph and what makes them all common to Glastonbury.  It seems to me, one could not add more with the hope of elucidating the shambolic theories which currently exist without understanding their commonality being derived from Henry Blois.
What I have attempted to elucidate so far is Henry’s connection to the Matter of Britain, but unless modern researchers accept that Henry Blois is the author of the HRB and the initiator of the Grail legends (as I have covered)…. there will be no further understanding of the relationship between our three genres of 'Geoffrey's' work, Glastoburyalia and the Matter of Britain. These obviously link through the prophecy of Melkin and Henry Blois’ knowledge of it, which effected events and lore at Glastonbury. The modern consensus and acceptance of what appears to be random associations will remain a quagmire of pick and mix theories as long as certain baseless a priori positions are defended by modern scholars.

Much of the piecing together relies upon our current expert’s pet theories.  Some erroneous assumptions have dated certain manuscripts which has made it less likely to uncover that Henry Blois could have been the originator of the Matter of Britain, i.e. it is a common assumption that Chrétien is the first to mention the Grail in writing. This for the main part is based upon Robert de Boron’s mention of Chrétien in his manuscript and the presumption indicates that he followed or had heard of Chrétien’s lead concerning the Grail. This is simply not true!! The guesswork not only denies Henry Blois as the originating author of Grail literature in Perlesvaus, but supplies no comprehensive theory as to how these histoires were transmitted to Chrétien or who wrote the book Chrétien attests to.
We should also not forget that Henry Blois, hiding his identity as the promulgator of the initial Grail legends (as Master Blehis), was patron to Gerald…. and Giraldus Cambrensis’ Bledhericus is the ‘famosus ille fabulator’ who had lived "shortly before our time".

It would be a madness to think that a ‘fortuitous convergence of factors’ (Lagorio's solution), made Chrétien randomly connect the ‘Glass’ of Glastonbury and coincidentally find it transliterated in French. It is hard not to see that Chrétien de Troyes has heard a version from Henry Blois or Master Blehis when in Erec[1] at King Arthur’s court Erec is married by the Archbishop of Canterbury in front of guests: Along with those whom I have just mentioned came Maheloas, a great baron, lord of the Isle of Voirre. In this island no thunder is heard, no lightning strikes, nor tempests rage, nor do toads or serpents exist there, nor is it ever too hot or too cold. Graislemier of Fine Posterne brought twenty companions, and had with him his brother Guigomar, lord of the Isle of Avalon. Of the latter we have heard it said that he was a friend of Morgan the Fay, and such he was in very truth. Davit of Tintagel came, who never suffered woe or grief.

It would also seem beyond the bounds of coincidence that the little known insular Vita Merlini story of Merlin’s madness where Morgan is mentioned on Insula Pomorum, just happens to be a friend of Guigomar Lord of Avalon. Are we supposed to believe this has nothing to do with Master Blihis? Does this coincidence transpire entirely independently in the Chrétien rendition emanating from the court of Champagne where Henry’s two Nephew’s and their wives (known proponents and promulgators of Grail literature) were situated and were known patrons of Chrétien?
One Arthurian episode appears in Caradoc of Llancarfan’s, Life of St. Gildas and also Chrétien de Troyes’ The Knight of the Cart. The fact that it is in a work by Chrétien becomes relevant once we understand that the court of Champagne[2] is hearing of the Grail through a Master Blihis. The point right now is that it is Arthuriana which is closely connected with Glastonbury, long before the famed discovery of Arthur at Glastonbury.

Chrétien himself testifies to the fact that his knowledge of the Histoires came from Master Blihis. Strangely Robert de Boron prefixes his own name with the title Meistres in one case followed by ‘Bouron’ and secondly as Messires followed by ‘Beron’. ‘Blihos Bleheris’ is Robert de Boron’s greatest teller of tales at court and also ‘Blaise’ is given the honour of having recorded three of Robert’s Histoires. 
Modern scholars misunderstanding of the provenance of Grail literature and their blindness to Henry Blois’ relation to Melkin’s prophecy…. where it is witnessed as ‘Geoffrey’s’ inspiration (and specifically scholarships dismissal of the geometric directions to the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea by Melkin’s prophecy), has prevented Joseph or the body of Jesus being re-discovered. 
 Hundreds of ‘experts’ have tested the Turin shroud which once covered the body of Jesus, yet, not one scholar admits the image was made (formed) in Cedar oil from the human corpse of Jesus as put forward by Goldsworthy.[3]  But, without accepting that there was a body of Jesus long after his death, how could some scholars possibly concede that the shroud image was made over time by the body? They could not as this would deny the very essence of Christianity.
One would have to accept the theory that Jesus’ body existed somewhere on earth which goes directly against the eschatology presented in the Gospels. Scholars deny the image of the Turin Shroud was formed in Cedar oil not because they can definitively say the residue image is not formed from dried Cedar[4] oil and anaerobic bacteria deposits…. but simply because they cannot conceive of the body of Jesus on Burgh Island and the Templars having discovered its whereabouts, shortly before they were all exterminated on orders from the pope. The fact that the Shroud of Turin first appeared in the hands of a Margaret de Charney[5] granddaughter of a murdered Templar seems irrelevant. Especially if one cannot conceive of the body of Jesus still being preserved in Cedar oil c.1300AD.

Nearly every theory put forward to date is conjectural and cannot be tested. Most certainly the theory which puts Joseph of Arimathea on Burgh Island can be. The Devon Archaeological society has taken advice from the ‘expert’. The present Jewish owner of the Island who denies permission for a ground penetrating radar to locate the tomb has been advised by ‘experts’ that there is no merit in such a search. Ironically enough, the owner of the Island wants to cover the tomb with 200 Solar panels[6] and the residents of Bigbury are up in arms that it might destroy the ambiance of the Agatha Christie Hotel. What is laughable is that by the time the scholars have understood that Joseph’s relics are on the island, no-one will be able to put a ground penetrating radar over the tomb because it will be covered in panels.  The real problem is that the various disciplines of scholastic endeavour are so protective of their own specialised domain, that the various branches remain insular with no cross-over.

We can see plainly it is not in the interest of either of Carley or Crick or Cunliffe to expose the truth because the indifference of their so called ‘scholarship’ will be exposed. A set of events of such purport which would expose the ‘Vatican lie’ of a bodily resurrection is being repressed by the very people who profess to enlighten us through their scholastic efforts?[7]
I hope to elucidate and show the reader how it is that Henry Blois has been able to hide himself as the author of the  genre of work known as the Matter of Britain while propagating his ethereal propaganda in the trappings of a tale. Therein is hidden a truth which will change modern religion. The real problem is that no-one wishes to find the bodies for fear of the ramifications.  The anonymous author of the primary Grail legends such as Perlesvaus has purposefully secreted his authorship and he has used the same ploy as ‘Geoffrey’ in advocating a mysterious book from which his authority is derived. 

There are only two authors who concern us here regarding the early promulgation of Grail literature. Chrétien de Troyes who was a trouvère at the court of Marie de France at Troyes and Champagne (in the heartland of the Blois region); and Robert de Boron, who, as we shall see, is either a pseudonym for Henry Blois[8] or Henry Blois is the direct source of versified material from which a living Robert de Boron transposed into prose. There may never have been a person called Robert de Boron in reality, but we shall get to that shortly.

 It is necessary to understand that Henry Blois was a man of immense power, who, due to his blood line and Norman aristocratic connections, commanded influence through the most powerful courts in both England and on the continent.  After the death of his brother Theobald and the Empress Matilda, he was the last surviving grandchild of William the conqueror. We have seen how the HRB went through a transition up until its completed Vulgate form in 1155 and to understand its transmission and the capability of Henry Blois to remain in the shadows as the author, we should also understand that Henry held sway over several monastic institutions where monk scribes resided who were conversant in Welsh, Cornish, French and Latin. Because no manuscript was released in the same environs where it had been copied or produced, the likelihood of it being traced back to Henry was reduced. We can look upon Henry as a courier and propagator of his own propaganda through the monastic system and courts of Europe and England.

 It was possible to spread Arthuriana on the continent which had been transcribed by insular monks and vice versa to spread Henry Blois' French versifications to the Norman aristocracy in Britain without being discovered. A presentation manuscript to a court or to an influential personage could be passed off as an inconsequential gift. Henry, nonchalantly could appear as having picked up some manuscript on his travels, or he could disseminate his propaganda by any such deception. In my opinion this is how Helinand in Froidmont had heard of the Grail and the story of it from a British monk. The copying of any amount of manuscripts to most struggling authors like a ‘realistic’ Geoffrey of Monmouth would have been difficult and costly. As we know, the dedications are falsified retrospectively after the dedicatees were dead and the dissemination of the HRB manuscripts was carried out by the wealth of Henry, not by patronage of the dedicatees as is pretended.
With Henry’s influence over various scriptoriums full of monks ready to do his bidding, it is not difficult to see how the edifice which eventually became the Matter of Britain was made popular initially as the Arthurian epic presented in a fifth of HRB.  By the time HRB manuscripts were being dedicated to dead people and dead people were being referenced post 1155…. ‘Geoffrey of Monmouth’ was also already supposedly dead and no-one could trace him or Walter’s book.  There is not a single record of someone talking to a living 'Geoffrey of Monmouth (excepting the ficttitous meeting between him and Theobald of Bec with two spurious witnesses); and any person that took offence at what Geoffrey had written did not comment until after his supposed death.

How the dissemination of Grail literature took off was slightly different in its proliferation from the dissemination of HRB, because an appetite for Arthurian adventure tales had been prompted by the chivalric Arthur  and by ‘Wace’s’ versification of it.  Arthuriana c.1159-60 was of some renown in aristocratic circles. The real difference in dissemination is that the stories concerning Arthur, his knights, Joseph and the Grail were shorter and were transmitted by conteurs at court in verse.... rather than  emanating from a book like the Vulgate tome of  more highbrow historicity written by 'Geoffrey'. We should not forget Blihos Bleheris ‘knew the whole story’ of the Grail and is probably the author of  the singular book referenced by Chretien.   Mathews suggesets concerning the Elucidation  attached to Percival 'While it is anonymous, there is some argument (mainly from Jessie Weston) that the poem was composed by Blihos Bliheris himself, who may be the historical Bledericus mentioned by Gerald of Wales as a storyteller in the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine. As such, he may have decided to write himself into the grail legend.'  Do you think!!!!
Why is it that Modern scholars cannot see the wood for the trees? Wherefore it is that the wise man leaveth it aside and doth simply pass on beyond, for, and Master Blihos lie not, the secret no man should tell. This are the words of Henry Blois in its original form but the most intriguing question is.... does he suspect that the body of Jesus is the Grail. What is the secret no man should tell.?

So, it is not silly to suggest that the Grail legend’s popularity was forged not so much through the manuscript but through the trouvère tradition. This may well have been carried out by reading from a book to an audience by someone Henry Blois had employed at court or to whom he had given a script. There is even a possibility that on occasion Henry disguised himself as a trouvère. There is reasonable evidence, which we will cover shortly, that Robert de Boron’s three prose works were originally derived from versified originals which were read out at the various courts (including Marie of Champagne’s) and this is how Chrétien first came to hear of the Grail…. and the Grail's connection to Joseph of Arimathea related by Robert.

 The very idea of a quest or search for the tomb of Joseph (as we have already covered) was carried out in Montacute by Henry Blois and the fact that the duo fassula is the forerunner or inspiration for the Grail is significant by this connection. This possibility of the Melkin prophecy acting as an inspirational template is especially highlighted in Glastonbury’s connection to Henry Blois; Henry’s connection to HRB; and Melkin’s prophecy being connected with Glastonbury and Avalon. All these coincidences must lead one to see that the encoded puzzle that Melkin set posterity is Henry’s blueprint for the idea of a quest or search for the Grail. In other words the Melkin prophecy itself is in fact the originator of a quest to find the Island on which the Grail (duo fassula) exists.
 If one can unlock the riddle, one will find Joseph’s tomb. For the prophecy to have such ‘coincidence’ in its geometry, it would be astounding, if as Carley suggests, it was put together from various sources.
In essence therefore, The prophecy would have no cohesion and must be meaningless and yet in reality locates an island in Devon by the geometric and numerical data found therein…. once unscrambled.  The fact that the two figures (104 & 13) mentioned in the prophecy define a line which beyond chance passes over Montecute and terminates on Burgh Island should at least awaken the interest of the most sedentary researcher.
Anyway, by whatever method the subsequent material to HRB concerning Arthur, his knights, Joseph and the Grail was transmitted, its initial proliferation in the period from 1159 to 1170 is plainly through the aristocratic court contacts Henry Blois had both in England and France.

If we were to briefly look at the contacts at court where an association to Philip of Flanders is specifically mentioned by Chrétien and of course Marie of France (see chapter on Marie of France), we can grasp how easy it was for Henry to disseminate his material.  His familiar connections were the highest of the aristocracy and they ran the very court milieu where Arthuriana was soaked up. 

If for example we take Theobald the Great (Thibaut de Blois 1090–1152), Henry’s brother, who was Count of Blois and of Chartres (as Theobald IV from 1102); and who was Count of Champagne and of Brie as Theobald II from 1125; he held Auxerre, Maligny, Ervy, Troyes, and Châteauvillain as fiefs from Odo II, Duke of Burgundy. He was of course son of Stephen II, Count of Blois, and Adela of Normandy. They were of course also Henry’s mother and father.  After Adela’s retirement to Marcigney in 1125, Theobald had rule over the Blois family properties. 
However, King Louis VII of France became involved in a war with Theobald by permitting Count Raoul I of Vermandois, the seneschal of France, to repudiate his wife Eleanor and to marry Petronilla of Aquitaine, sister of the (then 1137–1152) queen consort of France, Eleanor of Aquitaine.  The Eleanor who was slighted by Raoul was Theobald's and Henry Blois’ sister and the insult caused a war which lasted two years from 1142–1144 while King Stephen was still alive.
The war was marked by the occupation of Champagne by the royal army and the capture of Vitry-le-François, where many persons perished in the deliberate burning of the church by King Louis. This Ralph I of Vermandois (Raoul) who caused the offence was son of Hugh I, Count of Vermandois, and Adelaide, Countess of Vermandois and paternal grandson of Henry Ist of France. Ralph’s uncle was Philip I of France. Through him Ralph was a first cousin of Louis VI of France and a first cousin, once removed of Louis VII of France.
 Anyway, under pressure from Queen consort Eleanor of Aquitaine, Louis allowed this Ralph to divorce his wife Eleanor, (the said sister to King Stephen, Theobald and Henry) in favour of Eleanor of Aquitaine's sister, Petronilla of Aquitaine.   To connect another grandee in the courtly web; Philip of Flanders reign began in 1157, and he became regent for his father, Thierry, who was frequently on crusade.  In 1159 Philip married Elisabeth of Vermandois, elder daughter of this count Ralph I of Vermandois and Petronilla of Aquitaine. Now, more importantly and greatly having a bearing on this investigation…. when Louis and Eleanor’s marriage was annulled in 1152 custody of Marie of France and her sister, Alix, was awarded to their father, King Louis. As we know, Eleanor of Aquitaine their mother, married Duke Henry, Count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy, who later became King Henry II of England.

 In 1160, when Marie’s father, King Louis, married Adele of Champagne (Henry Blois' niece), he betrothed Marie and Alix (his daughter’s by Eleanor of Aquitaine) to Adele's brothers, Henry and Theobald V…. not forgetting Adele of Champagne, was the daughter of Theobald II, Count of Champagne…. Henry Blois’ brother. 
So, as we have mentioned, Henry Blois was the last survivor of the illustrious Blois brothers and uncle to the young Henry and Theobald and they of course were married to daughters of Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Now, this is only a small cross reference which shows the coincidences of the names which are linked to the initial propagation of the Grail stories i.e. Eleanor of Aquitaine, Marie of Champagne (Marie of France)[9] and Alix, King Henry II, Philip of Flanders and their connection to Chrétien and to Henry Blois.
The old city of Troyes where Henry Blois’ father had been count, was where Marie held her court, and was the womb of continental Grail literature. It was at Troyes that Chrétien was led to write romances which form the ideals of French chivalry which of course was the zeitgeist of the 1160-70’s. This fascination with Arthuriana had been brought to the fore by ‘Geoffrey’s’ chivalric Arthur in HRB, but in the continental courts through the introduction of King Arthur through Henry Blois’ impersonation of Wace writing the Roman de Brut (as I have covered on the chapter on Wace).
 As an ideal of social conduct, the code of chivalry was the aspiration of the aristocracy, the concept of the "honette homme". That Henry Blois was a part of its emergence is seen in its portrayal by Arthur in HRB upholding its moral code and also by the code of conduct mentioned by Henry Blois as the author of GS; (especially escorting Matilda to her brother Robert at the beginning of the Anarchy and such episodes as the jousts before the rout of Winchester).
The pastimes of the aristocratic class of readers and courtiers were jousting, hunting, and making love and the poetry of those who entertained them reflected their interests. The descriptions of women famed for their beauty are many throughout Grail literature, but so was the interest of Women in the literature and hence the preponderance of these matters in the poems to entertain the leisure hours of such at the court of Marie (see chapter on Marie of France (the poet) being the same person as Marie of Champagne).

Chrétien’s romances, written in eight-syllable rhyming couplets, treat respectively of Erec and Enide, Cliges, Yvain, and Lancelot, but "Perceval le Gallois", was composed around 1175 for Philip, Count of Flanders, to whom Chrétien was attached during his last years and a few years after Henry’s death.  What we know of Chrétien we learn from his works.  The dedication of Lancelot or the Chevalier de la Charrette informs us the work was composed for Marie de Champagne daughter of Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine. It was Marie who became countess of Champagne by her marriage to Theobald’s son (Henry Blois’s brother) in 1164, the son being called ‘Henri the Liberal’....  and therefore, we can know Lancelot was composed after that date. Marie and Henri's court at Champagne was a literary centre entertaining such other notables connected to the promulgation of Grail literature such as Walter Map.
 The prologue of Perceval or the Conte du Graal which was dedicated to Philippe of Alsace who became Count of Flanders in 1168 and yet died at Acre in 1191 must indicate the Conte du Graal to have been started between these dates. Marie was widowed from Theobald’s son Henry in 1181 and Philippe of Flanders is known to have proposed marriage to Marie, but this was long after Henry Blois’ death. But, still the proximity of the relationships to the known patrons or propagators must be taken into account when making any conclusions on the proliferation of the primal material in Grail literature. As we make plain later Marie was widowed from Theobald’s son Henry in 1181 and may well have used her former appellation as daughter of Louis to write he Lais under the name of Marie of France after her husbands death.

If we can accept that Henry Blois is the instigator of the Grail legends propagated in various forms, separated by characters, episodes and motifs, yet linked purposefully and loosely corroboratively, we can get a better grasp of the transitions through which the tales have been reworked and how it is that scholarship has been left bewildered.
There can be no understanding of the Grail or the Arthurian and Josephian literature which connects it to Glastonbury without including the name of Henry Blois or Melkin. There is simply no present day credible authority on the Grail; although many would put themselves forward as such in an instant. R.S Loomis[10] is the closest to being accepted an expert, but in his compendium of rationale regarding Arthuriana and Grail literature[11] Henry Blois is not even named. Until scholarship accepts the Prophecy of Melkin as existing in the era of Henry Blois (even though it is not attested until John of Glastonbury’s Cronica) there can be no furtherance in understanding of the provenance of the Grail, Grail Literature or Glastonburyalia.[12]

The fact that one single man has been capable of engineering what became known as the Matter of Britain (yet its core truth that Jesus' body was brought to Britain by Joseph was never openly understood or stated) and has been able to keep his identity secret.... has left all theories which deal with the spawning of Grail literature incomplete.
Henry Blois himself was mystified by the item of the Grail (which was based on Melkin’s duo fassula).  What we know of ‘Geoffrey’s' methods in his composition of HRB, we can see that there is barely a single item which we cannot trace to another source for its inspiration. We know by the Meusan plates Henry refers to his own muses. If we can accept Henry Blois as ‘Geoffrey’ which I have plainly set forward in the previous chapters); the incongruent (and what was once thought to be highly original episode of King Lear), can now also be seen to be based upon his own Father’s rejection on his return from the crusades in disgrace.... and thus is also of familiar source.

We can trace many of the pivotal parts in the Matter of Britain which are inspired by the prophecy of Melkin once it is understood Henry Blois had a copy.[13] For instance, one might say the most important inspirational part of the Melkin prophecy to influence events in the Matter of Britain is the burial of a body to be found in the future on Avalon; the mystical location of an island, the name derived from the French town in Burgundy and posited as the last place Arthur is seen in HRB. (Understanding also that Henry Blois was responsible for manufacturing Arthur's grave at Glastonbury as I have covered). The uncovering of a tomb in the future is of course posited about Joseph’s remains in the original prophecy on Ineswitrin.
The forerunner of the Grail itself is the duo fassula and the ‘Quest’ for the Grail itself (or Joseph’s tomb in which lies the Grail) is part of the purport of Melkin’s puzzle. Therefore, it should not come as a shock that Henry’s Graal is directly related to the duo fassula (or at least the understanding of it by Henry himself).
Henry’s comprehension of Melkin’s words was that there were two ‘vessels,’ one of which held the Lord’s blood. As we know from my previous coverage of the meaning of ‘blood and sweat’ found in the prophecy; the actual wording alludes and directly relates to what constitutes the Turin Shroud itself (or what Melkin thought the shroud image was composed of) This as we know was uncovered by the Templars and was the cause of their demise. It seems to me that Henry’s miscomprehension of the prophecy was that the blood of Jesus would be focused upon as a visualization of an episode of it flowing from Jesus’ body…. as was described in the Gospel of John 19:34.
 In Robert de Boron’s Percival it leaves no doubt what the Grail vessel contains: And this vessel, called the Grail holds the blood that Joseph gathered as it flowed from His wounds to the earth. It is just macabre to think that one vessel contained sweat and is probably why the Grail became singular. In reality though, the Turin shroud contained both blood and sweat as is stated in the Melkin prophecy.

 Now, if it is Henry Blois that is the propagator of the legend concerning the Graal and he is doing this in vernacular French and basing it on what he had understood was being alluded to in the prophecy of Melkin, then we should understand that the Graal is based quite simply on sang réal, which in vernacular French translates as "royal blood"; and is based entirely on what Henry assumes has been collected by Joseph of Arimathea at the crucifixion site. Henry Blois as the inventor of insula Avallonis and the person who had substituted its name for Ineswitrin on the now lost original Melkin prophecy, would know that Ineswitrin was in Devon as it is corroborated as such in the genuine 601 charter found also at Glastonbury. 
 However, because of Henry’s different outlets and modes of transmission for his Grail propaganda; by the time that Chrétien or Robert de Boron had retold what had been told orally or had been written down by Henry as verse; the sang réal had morphed into a san graal or san gréal by oral transition just as Roi Pecheur evolved from Roi Pescheor.  Probably through Henry’s initial inability to grasp its dual substance (two vessels), the Grail became a singular ‘un Graal’, but still un san Graal by its connection to Jesus and ultimately by later translation becoming the ‘Holy Grail’.

Henry ties what could be conflated as an ancient Welsh magic cauldron with the concept of the Grail to which Arthur is then connected. It is also Henry Blois’ ploy in both HRB and Grail literature to pretend its source is from antiquity by saying there are ancient volumes or volumes in Latin. Barber states: The origin of this material is clearly Celtic, but the form in which it is preserved is interesting: these fragments, notably the story contained in the first item above (which is paralleled in the opening scene of Perlesvaus), represent a stage in the evolution of Arthurian romance of which little remains- the Latin versions of Celtic or traditional local stories. How extensive these Latin versions were must remain a matter for conjecture but it is possible that the claims of the romance writers to have used Latin texts should not be totally dismissed; they may well have taken incidents like these from Latin sources and woven into the larger tapestry of their stories.[14]

Commentators have thus assumed that the source of the Grail emanates from its association with the Celtic otherworld. But, this is simply a concept of the Grail caused by the purposeful conflation of Henry Blois to the Spoils of Annwfn. Thus we hear from Loomis et al. about the Christianization of a Pagan object,,,, which is pure piffle. The Cauldron of the chief of the otherworld and the nine maidens who tended it are conflated with the nine sorceress priestesses of Pomponius Mela’s island of Sena and then again with purposeful intent with the nine maidens on Insula Pomorum in VM. One would have to be pretty silly not to accept that in chapter 5 of DA it is Henry Blois’ own words which compose the conflation with the Welsh Afallennau: Apple island from avalla in British is the same as poma in Latin.  Or it was named after a certain Avalloc who is said to have lived there with his daughters….

To believe, as Gaston Paris did, that Chrétien crossed the channel to obtain his accurate knowledge of places in Western England, or to assume that Joseph d’Arimathie and his ‘vessel’ (fassula) was brought to the Vaus d’Avaron in the west, independent of Henry’s influence, ignores Glastonbury’s connection to Avalon as early as 1156-7 in VM as Insula Pomorum. Especially, when taking into account that the author of the Perlesvaus has understanding of Glastonbury topography and the old church (un chapel nouvellement faite, qui mout estoit bele e riche; si estoit covert de plon,). Scholarship has been so severely duped by the invention of the persona of ‘Geoffrey’, few scholars have even considered the connection from bishop Henry Blois to Monseigneur Blehis, Master Blihis, or Master Blihos (in the elucidation to Perceval) Blihos Bleheris (or Blihos being an anagram for H.Blois). The fact that no-one, (not even the king) knew who Blihos-Bliheris was, is indicative of the fact that Henry Blois disguised himself to tell his stories as the elucidation to Perceval points out.  Blihos Bliheris ....came to the Court did yield himself up, albeit never was he there known of the King, no one knew him. But right good stories he knew, such as that none could ever be weary of the hearkening to his words. 
The blindness of modern scholars to the common denominator of our three genres under investigation concerning Glastonburyana, Arthuriana (stemming from 'Geoffrey') and Grail literature is almost akin to refusing to inter-relate certain sciences. This, for instance, ignoring the cross overs which aid comprehension of their subject matter more fully.  If one denies the connection to the Prophecy of Melkin of the Grail and of course Henry Blois' impersonation of Geoffrey of Monmouth (and Henry's connection to grail literature) and the manufacture of King Arthur's grave, plus his interpolations concerning Avalon in DA....there is simply no theory of any substance which holds credibility. Yet our modern scholars simply refuse answers and deny certain possibilities relying on baseless theories built up by predecessors which make their understanding void of meaning. Especially, concerning what has transpired at different points in history concerning our three genres of study.  

To deny that the fount of these Histoires  of the Grail came into being at the exact time (i.e. 1160-70 and onward) when Henry Blois was at liberty to expand and embellish his self-motivated propaganda is ignoring the solution to many unanswered problems.
Henry Blois developed an historical chivalric Arthur from an unremarkable warlord in antiquity whose worth had been partially aggrandized by Nennius and who had been mentioned anecdotally in Saints lives and Welsh poetry, and was a part of an oral tradition of the 'hope' of a conquered populace…. to become part of Henry’s evolving tapestry of ancient British History.

 Initially, the embellished Arthuriana in HRB was built upon a foundation of an already written pseudo-history composed as a work initially  intended for the Empress Matilda or her father (as I have covered), but  in 1136 was incomplete and unpublished…. to which Arthuriana was added in 1137-8 before becoming the Primary Historia  (the first edition of HRB found at Bec). This version too was driven by the popular cult of Arthur current at the time, obviated by the reference at the end of EAW (about Arthur's death) and had been added to the original pseudo-history in 1137-8 while Henry Blois was in Normandy and its geographical detail composed from Henry's time in Wales in 1136. The version found at Bec differs greatly from HRB or First Variant but our only sense of what was in that version is related in précis (or synopsis) evidenced in Henry of Huntingdon’s letter to his friend Warin (EAW).

The embellishments of Arthur and his Avalon does not negate the truth or accuracy of the Melkin prophecy or the certainty of Joseph of Arimathea having been buried on Burgh Island and having brought the body of Jesus to Britain…. all deposited in an ancient tin vault. Especially, the Joseph lore  obviates how the circumstances transpired…. when the Island of Ineswitrin happens to be an island known as Ictis, spoken of in the ancient world as a tin supplier. There is substance to these ‘rumours’ of the Britons as attested by Augustine.[15]

It is impossible to see how the British could prefer their own church over any other if it did not have its own established tradition which made it separate in its tradition from Rome. The Roman Vatican’s monopoly of power over souls, encompassing a third of the population of the Globe, rested upon expunging any reference of Britain’s connection to the Holy family. This transpired early in Britain’s history, but should not make the geometry in Melkin’s prophecy worthless or deny the blatantly obvious fact that the body of Jesus must exist somewhere. If this is too hard to believe for a Christian, then at least we should recognize that Joseph’s body has not been found.  Bodies do not evaporate to Heaven, maybe Spirits do!! They say that knowledge which is readily accepted by the mass is only fully understood when at last the intelligencia has grasped it and articulated it.

Who amongst the British scholars would deny British independence from the Roman church, the early evidence for which is apparent throughout Cornwall from the earliest dawning of Christianity? Most in the modern era believe the English church’s separation from Rome was caused by Henry VIII’s division on some facile point of marriage. This is true, but derives from a deeper and subliminal understanding of the British church’s independence from Rome. It is rather a consequence of the earliest Jews close to Jesus and Joseph, fleeing Jerusalem to join their long lost cousins from the earlier diaspora.[16] This was the reason Joseph chose to bring Jesus’ body to Britain as he had been to Ictis (Burgh Island) as a tin trader in the south west of England and found the remnants of like minded people (Jews) from the diaspora waiting for a Messiah.
In all likelihood (but it will be a speculation too far for most), Mary Magdalene was from Britain and this is why she suddenly appears in the New testament accounts (maybe at a marriage) and therefore the body of Jesus was taken to Burgh Island. To dismiss the link of the Jews from the Diaspora settling Dumnonia we should only look to names of Jonas King of Dumnonia 530-540 and several named Judicaël King of Domnonia[17] also King of the Bretons after the Saxon incursion.

There are still scholars today who believe that the story of the vessel and the ‘Quest’  sprang from the mind of Chrétien de Troyes. Why this is still posited, given the testimony by both Chrétien and Robert de Boron and the author of Perlesvaus (who all attest to a previous authority), seems ridiculous. All authorities on the Grail having a similar sounding name to Henry’s surname.
Given that we can understand the Graal having evolved orally from a sang réal, we must also admit that Robert’s Roi Pecheur could well have evolved from Roi Pescheor. The Old French word pescheor translates as a sinner and given the connection to Jesus, could well have been a misinterpreted, but embellished reference to the King of the sinners, which is Jesus…. as he succumbed to sacrifice that he might pay the price for the sins of all.
One can see from these two examples alone, that it seems highly probable that Henry Blois is responsible for a certain amount of oral transmission of his propaganda. There is little other rational explanation as to the sudden appearance of Un Graal, except it having originated from sang réal to become san Greal. The fact that Helinandus c.1210 explains the meaning of this previously unknown word as a dish[18] has commonalities with the rationalisations of Chrétien and Robert de Boron who both derived their understanding from Henry, who clearly had to understand it as a vessel…. as in the Prophecy of Melkin.
That Helinand finds the need to provide an explanation shows there was still uncertainty to the meaning of Un Graal forty years after Henry’s death.  Between Henry’s initiation of a sang réal which morphed to a san graal to Un grail, there is a period of transformation from Henry Blois’ terming the vessel ‘the vessel of the Holy Blood’, which over the 40 year period since its inception into the public domain,  Helinand thought needed clarification. The Grail’s initial derivation must be found in Henry’s interpretation of the Melkin prophecy as a vessel containing the blood of Christ.

 There is no-one in their right mind who would attest that the prophecy of Melkin was meant to bolster a cult of Joseph at Glastonbury.... when half of the text seems unintelligible or irrelevant until deciphered (Carley clearly shows his is as ignorant of the meaning and purport of the Melkin prophecy).  Logically, why make a fraudulent text which is not relevant to the purpose? On the other hand, it would be a freak of coincidence if a geometrically oriented puzzle about an island was randomly constructed (even from various sources) and when every word of the prophecy was utilised (and could be found to have relevance)….it then constructed a geometrical line that just happened to locate an Island in Dumnonia mentioned also ashaving been donated to Glastonbury in 601AD.

So, besides constructing a line on a map which adheres to exact measurements, we then find that all the other material in the prophecy is relevant, (otherwise we could not construct the line which is the point of the Prophecy in locating the island). The prophecy was obviously decoded by the Templars, hence the appearance of the Turin Shroud.
The St Michael line of churches sited along the line we are instructed to bifurcate also (not by coincidence) has two other churches dedicated to St Michael on the very line which we are encouraged to construct. One at the point on the hill at Montacute….for which I have maintained Henry carried out a search, because he was aware of its association with Joseph of Arimathea (as Father Good relates). The other St Michael church is actually on Burgh Island as Camden attests.[19]
Given that coincidence…. it would be silly to think that whoever laid out this design was not cognisant of the solution to Melkin’s prophecy. The churches were certainly in place long before John of Glastonbury recycles the Melkin prophecy. Since many of the Crusaders were Templars and were predominantly from the courts of Europe and would have heard of the Grail…. it is hardly surprising that they discovered what is today called the Turin Shroud. They could only achieve this if the Melkin prophecy existed and had been deciphered. The Roman church organised their demise simply because by finding the body of Jesus,  the Roman religion would become redundant.

The very aim of every scholar is to find a niche of expertise and 'own it' for one’s life, to be an 'expert' on something. Like a baton, the field of scholarship involving our three genres under investigation (Glastonburyalia, Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, and Grail literature... all adding material to La Matière de Bretagne), has been passed on and our experts are so well read on the voluminous opinion concerning the 'Matter of Britain' that.... it is virtually impossible to independently arrive at any other conclusions than those built empirically on false a prioris by previous generations. Each budding graduate’s understanding is guided by the construct of their mentors solutions. The scholastic community, by not recognising Henry Blois as the common denominator has, over the generations, built their own erroneous edifice which has no definitive conclusion and is full of contradictions and anachronisms. If the foundations collapse the very essence of scholarship is seen for what it is. The same goes for religion.  

This aside, what I can maintain is that the original connection of the Graal to Arthur by Chrétien and the propagation of its existence in connection with Joseph of Arimathea in French literature by Robert.... both stem from Henry Blois and his knowledge of the Prophecy of Melkin found at Glastonbury when he was abbot.

A Grail, wondrous but not explicitly holy, first appears in Perceval le Gallois, an unfinished romance by Chrétien de Troyes and additions to Perceval are six in number and two of these are referred to as prologues. These are the Elucidation and the Bliocadran. The elucidation survives in only one manuscript and the Bliocadran in two. Chrétien’s lack of sense of proportion and at times proper motivation of many disorganized episodes is indicative of his having heard such stories second hand from which he has used the characters and motifs. It is my opinion that the reson Chretien at times seems unorganised is that the different accounts have been read out at the court of Champagne (all composed by Henry) and  versions could not be recounted by memory by him and thus remained unfinished.  This may well have stemmed from hearing Latin Grail poetry and similar stories in vernacular.
This might explain some tangles and plot contradictions with similar episodes recounted at different times. The Perlesvaus itself (High History) with its disjointed branches seems to be a compilation of pre-existing more complete histoires.  Henry Blois himself had no duty to continuity which is evidently apparent in the three transitional versions of HRB and can be largely held responsible for many of the contradictions found in chronologies concerning Grail literature as a whole. 
It is virtually impossible to divine which constituent parts of Grail literature stemmed directly from Henry himself given the fact that his motivation is often that of conflation.[20] What we can be certain of is that the Grail itself (as it exists in the Melkin prophecy) was misunderstood by Henry Blois, but it is based directly on its perceived description in Melkin’s Prophecy. What can also be stated as a certainty is that Robert de Boron’s association of Joseph of Arimathea with the Grail stems directly from Henry Blois having read the Prophecy of Melkin. 
This of course will be verified when the tomb on Burgh Island is opened and the prophecy is validated. The rest of Robert’s work is concerned with rounding out and expanding upon what ‘Geoffrey’ had started in HRB developing Merlin etc.
We should not dismiss the coincidence of Henry being abbot of Glastonbury and the fact that Melkin's prophecy turns up there to be recycled by John of Glastonbury. John obviously had a copy of Perlesvaus and other output from Henry (some under the name of Melkin  as Bale and Pits imply, in a book thought to have been written by Melkin i.e. the book titled ‘De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda’ which could only have been written by Henry Blois  and is no longer extant (see chapter on Wace and the Round table). 
Arthur and his knight’s connection to the Grail is directly a consequence of Henry Blois having read the Prophecy of Melkin. Henry invented the chivalric  character of King Arthur in HRB along with the name Avallonis and without the prophecy there would not have been the object of the Grail or the manufactured grave of Arthur. This is upheld because we now understand Henry Blois had substituted the name of Ineswitrin (the real Island in Devon donated to Glastonbury in 601AD) for the name Avalon on the Melkin prophecy (which also refers to Burgh Island). It was this version (Insula Avallonis) that John of Glastonbury recycles. 
Robert de Boron’s reference to a ‘vessel’ more commonly than the ‘Grail’ stems from the fact that whatever his source was, (whether oral or written), it was more directly connected to the fassula description. Robert had also heard of the object known as the Grail, as it had already gone through the transition from sang réal to San Greal, yet both Chrétien and Robert have heard of the object second hand.
From this point we might deduce that it is Henry himself who has made the confusing transition from Christ’s blood to a Holy Vessel. I cannot gauge if Robert’s vessel of the last supper was a Henry Blois invention or not; but to my mind, the fact that Robert introduces Bron, smacks of a Henry Blois conflation (knowing the duo fassula's connection to Jesus) which ties the Grail to the Welsh Bran just as he had done in VM by locating Merlin Caledonius with Rhydderch. These would not have been efforts or associations made by Robert.  

However, in the Mons manuscript we find the Bliocadran prologue concerning Perceval's father. Just looking at the name sends up an alarm in its similarity to other phonetic names commencing with ‘Bli’ and their association with the Grail. In the Bliocadran prologue (a composition of 800 verses), Percival is not even mentioned. The Bliocadran/Bliocadron is in direct contradiction to Chrétien’s family history as told by Perceval’s mother, yet the poem has come from a common source in that La Gaste Forest (The Waste Forest) has the same name. The point is that, understanding Henry’s disregard for the superfluity of detail, adds to the very aura of in-preciseness and legendary all-inclusiveness upon which the Matter of Britain is built.
Chrétien does not name Perceval’s father, yet the Didot Perceval calls him Alain le Gros. We know Abbot Suger had written an account of the life of Louis Le Gros and we know Abbot Suger was handed one of the first unadulterated copies of the libellus Merlini by Henry Blois.[21].
Much of the hodge-podge detail of names in contradictory situations and episodes (throughout the surviving Grail literature), does lead one to deduce that the original form of the various stories told by Master Blehis/Blihos  have been transmuted in the 1160’s orally.  If transmitted by manuscript, such as the original Queste, Perlesvaus or Grail book…. it was then intertwined with his already existing oral tradition by Robert and Chrétien.Subsequently it was embellished by continuators cross referencing  Henry's original out put. It seems fairly pointless looking for an original as this ground has been amply ploughed by French and German commentators in the past.

If Henry Blois’ verse manuscripts ever existed and were read by conteurs at court, it is only the later versions by Chrétien and Robert which we are left with and these probably have their own embellishments incorporated. Whereas HRB has survived in the continuity of the monastic system (through its seemingly more historical content and Latinity), Grail literature cannot be said to have survived in the more fractured court system. 
Whatever we are to make of the Bliocadran as a work, we can see many similarities which tie the work to Henry Blois. Bliocadran had twelve brothers and Glastonbury was populated by one of twelve brothers; a certain Glasteing who found his sow sucking ‘old church apples’ there. Apart from the relevance for the apples linking Pomorum to insula Pomorum of VM fame and Glastonbury (through the apples) with Avalon…. the twelve brothers had several territories in Wales. One of which was Gower and the other Kidwelly and this Bliocadran was the father of Perceval. (As I covered earlier in the chapter on the Gesta Stephani, Kidwelly belonged to the Bishop of Winchester) .

The whole edifice of the Matter of Britain is built on tangential coincidences which taken as a whole have to have been interrelated by an architect. The literary composer who evolved the design had a fortuitously long life.  If it had not been for the great fire at Glastonbury in 1184, where so many books were destroyed, I am sure Henry Blois’ part in the manufacture of the false historicity which constitutes the Matter of Britain would have been discovered many years ago.
The strange circumstances of a man who wrote an utterly unique book and who was in the unique position to do so; with a unique intelligence at an opportune time in history and who was in possession of a unique prophecy…. made it possible to compose a unique legend. No crime committed (except the second biggest lie in history) so, why look for a culprit?
It is only when the relics of Joseph are exposed that the Roman crime will be revealed and then Henry’s part in the Matter of Britain will come to light.  Do we really live in an age where a conclave of Cardinals, some of which have sodomised young boys, are capable of choosing a man in each generation who is deemed infallible? [22]

Anyway, Henry Blois, seeing his fate and the potential destruction of his powerbase after the 1155 royal council meeting conducted at Winchester (at which the invasion of Ireland was discussed), put plan into action to escape the pending revenge from Henry II and had Peter the Venerable carry all his transportable wealth to Clugny a month prior to his departure. So, it is not by coincidence in verse 635 of the Bliocadran prologue: One whole month before, the lady had taken her treasure, which abounded in silver and gold, and sent it out of the land.

In the Elucidation, in line 12 we hear of "Master Blihis".  Bliobleheris, is mentioned in Chrétien’s Eric and Enid.[23]What has come down to us is a mixture of Henry Blois’ own tongue in cheek play on words of his own name included in his literature and the genuine reverberations of Henry Blois having stood in French courts in disguise or having employed someone to read his verse under the name of Master Blehis. It is not by accident or coincidence the Bleheris who, according to Wauchier, had ‘told tales concerning Gawain and Arthur's court’; and the Master Blihis, ‘who knew the Grail mystery’, and gave solemn counselling about its revelation; the Blihos-Bliheris, ‘who knew the Grail, and many other tales’; the Bréri, ‘who knew all the legendary tales concerning the princes of Britain’; and the famous story-teller Bledhericus, of whom Gerald of Wales speaks are all coincidental concoctions.
These are not separate people, or mere inventions of the separate writers. It would seem as if Henry, may well have deserved the title ‘famosus ille fabulator’, and it is not by chance that the similarity of his name appears in many forms in connection and as an authority on the Grail. Henry Blois is the only instigator of the Grail and most assuredly, the Grail as an object has been derived from Melkin’s description of the duo fassula. We just have to wait for the inteligensia to catch up before the Roman religion is exposed.

The  ‘master’ of Master Blihis has its derivation from ‘Monseigneur’ through Monsieur and even Blaise, the writer of the supposed ‘Grail’ book posited by Robert de Boron is ‘master’ of Merlin.[24]Wauchier the continuator of Chrétien refers to what he thinks is the original author by name and calls him ‘Bleheris’ the first time. On the second occasion he states specifically that this Bleheris was of Welsh birth and origin, ‘né et engenuïs en Galles’ (as he would have heard that mis-information put out by Henry Blois). He says this in connection with a tale being told to a certain, Comte de Poitiers, whose favourite story it was, saying ‘he loved it above all others’. This anecdote infers that it was not the only tale the said ‘Bleheris’ had recounted to the Count.[25]

 From the beginning of Henry Blois’ impersonations, he bases the source of all his Arthuriana on his time in Wales 1136  and continues the façade in the persona of a Welsh ‘Geoffrey’. We see this same gambit used as Chrétien/Wauchier’s storyteller.
However, Robert’s Blaise is firmly placed in Northumberland. Henry Blois had differentiated his Merlin Ambrosius of HRB fame to create a new Merlin Sylvestris or Merlin Caledonius in VM. This was solely to tie in with Welsh poetry and the mention of Myrddin Wyllt ,Myrddin Emrys, who became Merlinus Caledonensis, or Merlin Sylvestris by association with such people as Rhydderch, who came from the Old North of Britain.Thus by connection to Taliesin etc. This indicates that Robert de Boron’s Blaise (who was Merlin’s master) was in fact the newer Merlin Caledonius fabricated while Henry was at Clugny in 1155-8.

The ‘Elucidation’ prefaces the account of the Grail Quest by a solemn statement of the gravity of the subject to be treated as:‘God moveth the High story of the Graal. And all they that hear it ought to understand it, and to forget all the wickednesses that they have in their hearts’. These stark warnings are said to have come from a certain Master Blihis, concerning whom we hear no more.  As I have covered already, the phonetic coincidence of the name Blaise, ‘master’ of Merlin and Master Blihis, given the likeness to a genuine Monsiegneur Blois and the coincidence of the similar sounding Master Blihos, Bliobleheris, Bliocadran, Blihos-Bliheris, Bréri, Bledhericus is beyond chance. The name must have stemmed historically from a ‘real’ Henry Blois as the propagator of Grail literature.

It seems pointless to rearrange and correct certain a priori standpoints made by commentators such as Heinzel, Birch-Hirschfeld, Nitze, Bruce, Lot, Nutt, Potvin, Pauphilet, Loomis etc. who have tackled this subject and who have all conceded to the existence of an archetype or common theme, yet not one of them implicates Henry Blois as author.
Now, if we accept there is no mention of Glastonbury in HRB and there is no mention of Glastonbury in Grail literature, yet both genres concern themselves with Avalon and Arthur; surely we might look at a common composer of both genres and for a person who wishes to hide his connection to both. Henry Blois is without doubt intricately connected to the third genre of Glastonburyana as the dedicatee of DA; and the fact he was abbot shortly before Giraldus recognises Glastonbury as Avalon, (Giradus had read DA prior to the unearthing of Arthur) must be recognised as the era that the transition of Glastonbury into Avalon. took place... between William of Malmesbury’s death in 1143 and Gerald’s account c.1192-3.

 Considering all that we have covered previously, it does not take spurious conjecture to implicate Henry Blois. Given the phonetic similarity of name in the person attested by the continuators of Grail legend found in Chrétien and Robert’s work and the fact that we have similarly linked Henry Blois as the author of ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB…. I can only conclude that it is Henry Blois himself who interpolated the DA.
It is after all the interpolations in DA (see the Chapter on William of Malmesbury's Antiquites of Glastonbury), which provides the very glue by which the whole Matière de Bretagne is transformed from fable into the possibility of having realistic historical provenance. Arthur’s historicity depends upon him being unearthed and the curiosity and fame surrounding his character was spread abroad by Henry Blois in HRB in England (and in France through his impersonation of Wace) and Arthur’s connection to the Grail in romance literature. The possibility that Henry Blois had initially most probably searched for Joseph at Glastonbury (given the prophecy was found there) is augmented by his name’s association with the Montacute fiasco in the form of the De Inventione; allowing that Henry Blois was Dean of Waltham also and had a motive to create such a concoction.

Henry secretly attached the leaden cross on the underside of the grave lid in Arthur’s manufactured tomb at Glastonbury in between the two pyramids.... while probably inferring to other monks present that they were involved in a simple re-interment of a saint. He then waited until the monks (and himself) were dead. On his death and the release of DA amongst all the books donated to the Abbey by Henry, the interpolated contents just became part of Glastonbury lore, and accepted as having been written by the great historian William of Malmesbury 30 years previously.

Most modern scholarship has centred upon the inter-relationships of the various early Grail works in an attempt to hone in on Grail literature’s primordial form by comparing the various works. Comparing Grail episodes…. looking for a source…. is as futile as Crick’s work on Geoffrey of Monmouth without discovering who the originator of the HRB was. There can be no understanding of the construction of HRB or of the relationship between Primary Historia, First Variant and Vulgate versions, unless the events behind the production of each edition are elucidated. If nothing is known of the author (except what has been left behind to misdirect his contemporaries and posterity)…. it is likely the naive researcher will be duped.

As a generalisation, what makes most scholars inept is how their limited practical knowledge relates to reality.[26]  It is this use of common sense over against conditioned and unquestioned loyalty to predecessors’ opinions, (all of them quoting in reverence of each other’s learning).... which has hampered the progression in understanding of the three genres we have discussed.  Some experts still maintain that Chrétien is the inspiration behind the Grail or worse, that Robert is the inventor of Joseph and the vessel and its connection to Avalon.

The denial of the accuracy of the data in the Prophecy of Melkin by Carley is an act of ignorant negligence. It is contemptuous that one should be heralded an expert regarding Melkin and his prophecy. Especially when, by Carley’s own admission, he is entirely in the dark as to its meaning. The Island’s location is plainly indicated in the prophecy once it is decrypted. It is the same island which was given by the Devonian King to Glastonbury and on it is the body of Joseph of Arimathea and what is currently understood as the Grail.

The singular most important event which has confounded Grail questers and researchers into the truth behind the Matter of Britain is Robert’s account of Joseph of Arimathea. It is Joseph’s connection to the Grail and how his association to Glastonbury came into being which has been accounted a fortuitous convergence of factors by Lagorio.
I hope now that the reader is cognisant of the fact that Melkin’s prophecy is the key to the Grail.  There would have been far less confusion if Henry Blois had not substituted his own invention of  Insula Avallonis onto the Melkin prophecy in place of Ineswitrin. But it is HRB’s corroboration of the existence of Avalon which has tricked scholarship into believing that the island and the Melkin prophecy itself are also a fabrication based on the fact that Geoffrey’s work is a composite fiction.

However, rather than the truth being understood, the two gross fabrications of Henry’s, one being the chivalric King Arthur and the other Arthur’s fictitious association with Avalon, became cemented both in history and in location by the discovery of Arthur’s body.
We now know it was Henry Blois who planted the bones of a bogus King Arthur between the piramides at Glastonbury. This is no way belies the fact that Joseph was buried in Britain on Burgh Island (the real Ineswitrin), but it was Henry himself as the precursor to Robert de Boron who brought Joseph and the ‘Grail’ into connection with the mysterious Avalon, just as it was he himself who had promoted Avalon as Glastonbury in DA. We should therefore look specifically at Robert de Boron and how much of his work can be seen to be more aligned and closer to what may have originally existed as one strain of Henry’s propaganda.

The most poignant point to be made about Robert de Boron’s Joseph d’ Arimathie is that it is a construct of known history and embellished Apocrypha…. interwoven with a rationalisation of the truths which exist in the enticing description of the duo fassula in the Melkin prophecy. The tantalising suggestion that Joseph’s remains (as indicated in Melkin’s prophecy) are somewhere extant in Britain on Avalon, can only be connected to Robert’s mention of Avaron.
  Few commentators have tried to understand how it is that Joseph is even posited as being buried in England and have summarily dismissed the possibility because of scholarships erroneous assumptions concerning the Melkin prophecy and Pytheas' (Diodorus') description of an Island which was provender of tin. 
Henry could understand that Joseph of Arimathea came to Britain and died here.  The piffle which the scholastic community has written about Robert’s part in the Christianisation of the Grail (in whatever form and by whoever) is redundant. The Grail was always associated with Jesus in its connection as the mysterious duo fassula which is to be found in the tomb of Joseph.
. Henry has done his best to make an association with previous Welsh literature in conflating it with the cauldron. The Grail is in fact Jesus’ body which was brought by Joseph to Burgh Island to be buried in a secret vault. It was Henry Blois who did not understand this. But, he did make the connection that if the blood and sweat of Jesus existed, it must be in a vessel. One would expect his deduction because of the wording of the Melkin prophecy inferred that the blood and sweat was in two separate vessels.
The only way one could imagine two vessels containing the fluids of Jesus is through some macabre recuperation by a disciple. He would have to have been collecting droplets of sweat from a suffering suspended Jesus. So, more than likely, Henry Blois just refers to the one vessel of Blood which he imagines was collected after Jesus was speared. The grim connotation in collecting sweat is therefore eliminated along with the spurious vessel that supposedly contained it.

Henry Blois splices together two of his inventions. He introduces the round table firstly through Wace’s Roman de Brut and then an extension where the table of the last supper comes into conjunction with a singular vessel to be that used by Christ at the last supper. Un grail entre ses deus mains une damoisele tenoit.

The fact that the Modena manuscript E.39 of the Biblioteca Estense in Modena contains the entire trilogy of Joseph, Merlin and Perceval may be purely coincidental given Henry’s past association with Modena. To my mind there is something highly suspicious about Robert de Boron’s telling of these three tales which seems to correlate very closely with Henry’s known output in HRB and his obvious association to Avalon.
Blaise, the recorder of events which we are led to believe are in ‘the Grail book….’ provides the whole trilogy with a provenance for the material to the 12th century listener. ‘Geoffrey’ had used the same gambit of a source book from Walter in HRB. The Grail book provides the reasoning behind how it is that the various tales have been recorded and have been passed through time to be heard by listeners in the twelfth century.

However, the whole histoire of Joseph is partially corroborated in the acts of Pilate and the Gospel of Nicodemus and the rest of the story can be accounted to have come through the mists of time by Merlin, who exists at different points in time and has related the account to the recorder Blaise.[27]
    The ambiguity that the redactor of the Modena manuscript has left us reflects a previous rationalisation of Henry Blois which has been foisted on Robert: ‘My lord Robert de Boron, who tells this story, says, like Merlin, that it is in two parts, for he could not know the story of the Grail’. I believe the implication is that Henry has let us know that the story concerning Joseph and the Grail has been related by Merlin; and then Blaise and Merlin have recorded their own contemporaneous events in the sixth century and hence the provenance of the record. All so neat…. and one must ask, why is Robert explaining what is so obviously an invention of Henry Blois?
Robert refers to the ‘High book’ just as Chrétien speaks of the book given him by Count Philip of Flanders which does suggest a written source created by Henry. However the references are ‘to hear’ or to ‘hearing the book’ and supposedly Merlin instructs Blaise to set it down in a book ’for many people who hear my words will benefit from them’ and ‘the book of the Grail will be heard most gladly’.
Henry’s greatest asset in the proliferation of his authorial edifice is summed up by Merlin saying ’all who would willingly hear this book and have it copied’… Alas, unlike the HRB, it was not copied as the Vulgate HRB had been in the monastic system for obvious reasons…. and with Henry’s failing health and the onset of blindness in his last year, much of the Grail episodes in their original form were transferred orally while Henry was alive and maybe some corroborative works were burnt in the Glastonbury fire in 1184 like Melkin's supposed book titled ‘De Regis Arthurii mensa rotunda’. If I was to posit what happened given the definite agendas which are dealt with in Robert’s trilogy; I would say that Robert is putting into prose what Henry Blois had originally created in verse.

So little is known about Robert de Boron and most assume that he wrote between 1202 and 1212. Where Robert says: At the time I related the history of the Grail with my Lord Gautier in peace who was of Mont Belyal, it had never been related. Many have taken this to be that Boron, a village situated eleven miles from Montbéliard must be the Mont Belyal.
A certain Gautier de Montbéliard set out for Italy in 1202 and took part in the fourth Crusade and died in the Holy land in 1212.  For all those sceptics who have doubted Giraldus’ assertion concerning Glastonbury’s already established synonymy with Avalon in 1189-91, we surely have corroboration here as Robert’s Vaus d’Avaron can hardly be construed as anything else but the marshlands surrounding Glastonbury…. and it is hardly likely that Robert ever visited Glastonbury.  So at what date did Robert hear or read Henry’s versified editions?

To me, there is so much in Robert de Boron’s trilogy that ties closely with Henry Blois’ agenda, it would not be silly to assume that through Robert’s clearer presentation of Henry’s propaganda (tying up loose ends and consolidating)[28] and taking into account Henry’s attempts to conflate and align his earlier HRB with his secondary agenda concerning Avalon, Joseph and the Grail; it would almost seem as if Robert de Boron's’s rendition of events is remarkably close to how we might imagine Henry’s own consolidation would be.
It could be that somehow Robert’s histoires are a direct reflection of Henry’s post 1158 developments of the Grail saga.  All is conjecture, because in the thirty years or so from Henry’s death to c.1200, what seems to be three early sources are known to stem from Master Blehis or Monsigneur Blois (or some phonetic residue of his name) i.e. he was still known as the original propagator of the Grail by the various continuators and repetiteurs and re-workers.
How is it that continuators of Chrétien are using a common source and still referencing an oral tradition of Master Blehis?  Yet, it seems also that Henry must have committed at least two strains of Grail literature to writing? Certainly a case may be put forward for Chrétien, Robert and the writer of the High History all acting as repetiteurs of a previous account. But, what strikes me most about Robert’s work is the similarity of how he presents events and consolidates technical positions (i.e. the logistics of how the account survived through time), with how Henry Blois would similarly have consolidated these conundrums.

Henry Blois is unaware that the body of Jesus was brought to Britain, but understands from the Melkin prophecy that one or two vessels connected to Jesus exist in Joseph of Arimathea’s sepulchre on an Island. Henry Blois does not know of the islands location location.
Henry understands how a vessel needs to be tied back into the crucifixion episode (because the vessel contains the blood of Jesus) and he links this to the vessel he associates with Jesus at the last supper. He then has Pilate say to Joseph: ‘I have a vessel of his given to me by one of the Jews who were present at his capture’. This motif, I believe, may have derived from Henry himself as a rationalisation of the word ‘vessel’ found in the Melkin prophecy and its connection to Joseph.
Also another telling factor that the Melkin Prophecy pre-empts Robert de Boron is that; in the vessel is the blood of Jesus, just as is stated in Melkin’s prophecy. And our lord replied: Joseph, you must be its keeper…Joseph was on his knees and our Lord handed him the vessel and he took it, and our Lord said: Joseph, You are holding the blood which contains three powers…
Of course modern scholars assessment is that the Melkin prophecy is composed on Chretien and Robert’s Grail stories simply because Adam of Damerham does not mention the prophecy before JG's era. He does not mention the Melkin prophecy because Henry Blois did not include it when he interpolated William of Malmesbury's DA. It was not in DA because all evidence of authorship would lead back to Henry and his interpolations of that book would be too obvious.

Now, one other vital part about the Melkin prophecy’s duo fassula is that one vessel supposedly contains sweat, the other blood; or at least that was the literal translation as understood by Henry Blois. So, it is hardly surprising to find a reference to the sweat of Jesus, knowing Henry’s technique of encompassing as many ways of joining disparate information so that conflation occurs.
Robert de Boron has Veronica meet the lord when: the people who were leading the prophet through the streets, his hands tied, followed by the Jews. And he asked me to wipe away the sweat that was running down his face.  It is hardly likely that Glastonbury monks in the fourteenth century are going to invent the duo fassula (two vessels) to incorporate some version of Robert’s Grail story so they can possess both blood and sweat in two ‘cruets’.
Strangely enough, considering the duo fassula is in fact Melkin’s reference to a ‘doubled fasciola’ (i.e. the Turin Shroud), it is a huge coincidence that the cloth with which Veronica wiped the lord’s face is the ‘Veronica cloth’ when she says: when I got home and looked at the cloth, I found this image of his face. This anecdotal episode was obviously invented also to coincide with the ‘Veil of Veronica’.

 The Veronica Sudarium was in place by 1011 when a scribe was identified as keeper of the cloth.  Giraldus, after a visit to Rome made direct reference to the existence of the ‘Veronica’. Henry was never aware of the cloth with the Lord’s image doubled on it, (i.e. the Turin shroud)…. but it was found by Templars after he had died; and is the very reason the Roman Church had the Templars wiped out on Friday 13^th October 1307 by means of  the forces of the French King.
If the Templars found the tomb and removed the shroud, one can only imagine they had deciphered the prophecy. (some organisation did to construct all the St Michael churches which identify the lines indicated in the Melkin prophecy. These post date Henry's era).
 Since De Charney’s granddaughter produced the shroud, it must have been found long before John of Glastonbury recounted the Avalon rendition of the Melkin prophecy. We know the only person who would have reason to substitute the name on the prophecy would be Henry Blois as he had planted the grave of Arthur and had the leaden cross fabricated to indicate and corroborate that Glastonbury was Avalon (where King Arthur was to be found at some future date).

One other indicator that the Joseph d’ Arimathie story might have come from Henry Blois in a direct form (i.e. an original verse to Robert’s prose) is that there is no need for the coyness of Robert in not divulging what is written in the ‘book’ about the Grail. The simple point is that not even the original propagator of the Grail stories (i.e. Henry) knew of what the Grail consisted; and so all future continuators concocted a mystification of the object and its powers: Then Jesus spoke other words to Joseph which I dare not tell you- nor could I, even if I wanted to, if I did not have the High Book in which they are written: and that is the creed of the great mystery of the Grail. And I beg all those who hear this tale to ask me no more about it at this point…  Henry is uncertain what this mysterious thing is i.e. what the duo fassula exactly is; except by his misunderstanding of what he conceives to be the description given in the prophecy i.e. two vessels.
 So, Henry Blois weaves his impression of it into the story by asking the very question he has asked himself. ‘What purpose does it serve’?  In the end he has Percival ask the Fisher King: Sire by faith you owe me and all men, tell me the purpose of these things I see.

In Joseph d’ Arimathie it is made clear that the object was a vessel first and then received the name of a Graal: And what can we say about the vessel we have seen…what shall we call it? Those who wish to name it rightly will call it the Graal….and hearing this they said, ’this vessel should indeed be called the Graal’.  Why, would the Glastonbury monks go from an established ‘Un’ Graal to ‘Duo’ vessels in the fourteenth century as Prof Carley proposes?  The mystery of the vessel (from which Henry has understood as Vassula) in the prophecy, precedes the naming of the Graal ….coming from Sang Rèal (holy blood) through San Graal (in oral recounting) and thus Holy Grail. The other odd thing about the account of  Robert's Joseph is the introduction of Petrus and his letter.
I am fairly sure the point of the letter existing is to explain the existence of the prophecy of Melkin. Petrus is miraculously inspired to take the letter to the west, to the ‘vales of Avalon’. Petrus says: You never saw a message more entrusted than this. I shall go to the Vales of Avalon.  Now if the message or letter is mentioned to rationalise the existence and contents of the prophecy of Melkin by Henry Blois originally, it would not be difficult to accept that the person who changed the location on the prophecy is the same as the person constructing an episode of how it arrived in Avalon.[29](we should not forget Avalon is a construct by Henry Blois as composer of HRB based on the name of the Burgundian town in the region of Blois).

Henry may have been unaware of the tin trading connection of Joseph and so he would have had difficulty in working out why Joseph was in Britain in the first place. Petrus was told to deliver the vessel to Britain by the Lord’s will and obviously Bron was to be the next guardian because Henry was conflating the Welsh Bran with his invented Bron (just as he had made it appear in VM as if Merlin really did have a Welsh or northern Briton provenance, paralleling Welsh bardic material).
It also seems fairly plain that Robert de Boron is trying to rationalize or give meaning to an anecdotal part of a previous rendition of a story that once existed concerning the Roi Pescheor (the king of the sinners) i.e. Jesus.  Somehow it would seem in oral transition, the name became the Roi pecheur and ultimately ended up as the ‘Rich Fisher King’ with another account where Bron is the Grail keeper. Robert, who is unaware of the association of Joseph’s burial in Britain (spelled out by the Melkin prophecy) has Joseph end his days in the land and country of his birth which is never specifically stated…. but Henry knew he was buried on Ineswitrin not Arimathea. No-one has ever determined where Arimathea was.

Another odd coincidence that implies the originator of the Joseph histoire is more informed of a connection to the Melkin prophecy than Robert de Boron is evident in the Merlin histoire. Blaise is told to write the Book of the Grail by Merlin and: when you have done this great work for Joseph and his ancestors and descendants, and have earned the right to be in their company, I will tell you where to find them and you will see the glorious rewards that Joseph enjoys because he was given the body of Christ.

There is only one document which purports to show where one can ‘find’ Joseph (when deciphered), so how is Robert on the same track unless it came from Henry Blois and his knowledge of the Melkin prophecy. This is again, another tentative indicator of the prophecy’s existence before the fourteenth century.
Another achievement of the Merlin histoire is that it makes out that Blaise originally wrote down the story concerning the Grail, but very cleverly infers that there is another book which could be construed as the book ex Britannia (from where Uther and Pendragon have come from), which coincides with what is ambiguously implied in HRB.
In Robert’s Merlin we hear: Merlin had commanding influence over Pendragon and his brother Uther. When he (Merlin) heard that his predictions were to be written down he told Blaise and Blaise asked him, ‘Merlin will their books be similar to the one I am writing?’  ‘Not at all’ replied Merlin they will only record what has happened’. Merlin returned to the court… It was then that Merlin began to make mystical pronouncements of which the book of his prophecies was composed.

Since the prophecies of Merlin were constructed by Henry Blois, this to my mind adds to the supposition that Robert’s account is closely related to a propagandist account composed by Henry Blois which helps to square many ambiguities and contradictions, but in actual fact creates more salad in the whole web of lies he has created.
Also, as I have maintained, the ‘round table’ first mentioned supposedly by Wace is in fact a device of Henry’s, (given the fact that it miraculously appears at Winchester), we also see in Robert’s Merlin that: our lord bade him (Joseph) make a table in memory of the last supper…. and then there is a third table. Know then, that our Lord made the first table, and Joseph the second and I (Merlin) in the time of Untherpendragon ordered the making of the third.
One would think  that the man who had the table made for Winchester is the man who started the whole façade about the various tables and Utherpendragon decides to ‘have it made at Carduel in Wales’. We are then told: You will see in your table the significance of the other two and of the empty seat. The entire soup is meant to confuse, but can only have one source. Merlin’s connection to Utherpendragon differs from HRB in  the Primary Historia (i.e that account given in EAW): 'Uter Pendragon, that is, Dragon's head, a most excellent youth, the son of Aurelius, brought from Ireland the Dance of Giants (giants circle) which is now called Stanhenges’.

Robert’s version of Merlin nicely corroborates much found in HRB (and the Roman de Brut’s round table), and ties it together with what one might suppose were the Grail stories associated with Arthur’s knights that Henry had propagated at the beginning of his Grail agenda…. and ties it also into the Merlin Caledonius of VM. For instance, Utherpendragon and Igernre lay together and begat an heir called Arthur and when Merlin took his leave of the King, the King returned to his army and Merlin to Blaise in Northumberland.
How neatly this ties the Merlin Ambrosius to Merlin Caledonius and to Grail literature. One must either see Robert as some great consolidator who does this by chance…. or more likely, the design initially stemmed from Henry himself.  It is for this reason I have proposed a precursor to Robert’s work in verse which stemmed directly from Henry.

There is only one prophecy as such which speaks of the spiritual restoration of the land of Britain (as long as one does not think it applies to a climatic condition), and refers to the blood of Jesus. This of course is the prophecy of Melkin. The Melkin prophecy, as we know, refers to spiritual blessings once the tomb of Joseph has been opened to the whole world. It is not by coincidence then that Robert (who has his source as Henry Blois) informs us…. that once the question concerning the Grail has been asked the Fisher King will at once be healed. Then he will tell him the secret words of our Lord before passing from life to death. And that knight will have the blood of Jesus in his keeping. With that the enchantments of the land of Britain will vanish, and the Prophecy will be fulfilled. Given the Fisher King’s interchangeability with Joseph in later Romance…. Robert has three major pieces of Melkin’s prophecy in one sentence. What other prophecy could this refer to this? Given also, Henry’s love of Castles…. is it not odd that Chrétien’s Percival also mentions the Fisher King who directs Percival to the Grail Castle? Both Robert and Chretien have heard from a common source.

 It is during the feast in the castle at every course where the procession containing a candelabra, a bleeding lance, and the Grail are all brought through. No-one, not even Henry knows what the duo fassula refers to…. but Henry knows it is connected to Jesus, hence the lance, and to spice the salad…. the missing Menorah also. Most interestingly of all in Robert’s Perceval is the processional of the Grail. And as they were sitting there and the first course was being served, they saw a damsel, most richly dressed come out of the chamber; she had a cloth about her neck, and in her hands she carried two small silver platters. After her came a boy carrying a lance, which shed from its head three drops of blood. They passed before Perceval and into another chamber. After this came a boy bearing the vessel that our lord had given Joseph in prison; he carried it in his hands with great reverence.
It seems again a remarkable coincidence that in Melkin’s prophecy the common understanding which we are led to interpret (without deciphering) is that there are two vessels one of them silver: Joseph has with him in his sarcophagus two vessels, white and silver, filled with the blood and sweat of the prophet Jesus. Even though they are differentiated from the vessel that our lord had given Joseph in prison.... which is the Grail, it is not silly to suspect that in Robert’s Percival we can witness a closer relationship to the origins of the Grail having been established from Melkin’s prophecy. Of course these are the commonalities that scholars like Lagorio have based their theory on. It is quite ridiculous that if Robert and Chretien wrote c.1165-80 and Arthur’s Avalon was commensurate with Insula Pomorum c.1155-7 (which inferred Glastonbury in Somerset)…. that it took until 1345 until JG composed a composite prophecy about Joseph; especially when Robert infers the ‘message’ was sent to ‘the Vaus Avaron in the West’ by Joseph ....a hundred and eighty years previously.
But, we should not forget that the stupidity of the experts has informed us that the  Melkin prophecy which concerns Joseph and Avalon (contrary to common sense) has little to do with an Island in Britain but a certain al-Malik al-Zahir Rukn al-Din Baybars al-Bunduqdari, Sultan of Egypt and Syria, who had captured the fortress of Safed. (I cover this ridiculous notion in the chapter on the Prophecy of Melkin)

Again, in Perceval, a beautiful woman says to Percival: You were at the house of your Grandfather the rich fisher King and saw pass before you the vessel that contains the lord’s blood which is called the Grail. The prophecy of Melkin and its mention of Jesus’ blood precedes the Grail and is the model upon which the sang real became the Grail.

 If one assumes the Melkin prophecy is the product of an assimilation of French Grail material…. a composite; the real purpose of which supposedly relates material about Baybars and a fortress in Syria (as Carley proposes) and yet at the same time is supposedly reasoned a fake because it was composed  to locate Joseph’s sepulchre at Glastonbury through its composite propaganda….. the question is therefore: should we defer to the experts and deny there is any relevant geometry in the Melkin prophecy which points to Burgh Island?
Why did the supposed fourteenth century monk’s make it so complicated that even our brightest peers look to the East when Robert says Avalon is in the West. One would think the monks who intended us to comprehend that Joseph’s sepulchre was at Glastonbury could at least use relevant vocabulary to aid their propaganda.

The two silver platters are become part of the relics which make up the Grail: And did you not see the Grail and the other relics pass before you. Know then that if you had asked what the Grail was for, your Grandfather the King would have been healed of his infirmity and restored to health and the prophecy that our lord made to (about) Joseph would have been fulfilled.

 Is it not by coincidence that there is mention of a prophecy and Joseph?  I can understand how our modern scholars believe that the Melkin prophecy with the duo fassula full of the blood of Jesus…. along with its having a connection to Joseph, could have been formed from the descriptions of the various pertinent parts in Robert’s work.
How is it possible that just a chance mention of the number 13 randomly associated with the figure of 104, along with the random inclusion of a non-translatable word like sperula…. that all these vagaries just happen to construct an line which falls on an island in Devon.... and moreover passes through Montacute.
Are we silly enough to believe that they coincidentally (completely randomly) form a line on a map104 nautical miles long which just so happens to bifurcate an English Meridian within a sperula. Especially when the end of the constructed line (of stated length), created by following the instructions in the prophecy, falls (ends) precisely Burgh Island which I have identified has a connection to Glastonbury’s Ineswitrin. We are informed that Joseph’s relics are to be found there.

Robert’s version of events in the trilogy we have covered reflects closely Henry Blois’ own propaganda. ‘Blaise’ is the authority by which the account of the Grail reaches us: But Chrétien de Troyes says nothing of this- nor do the other trouvères who have turned these stories into jolly rhymes. But we will tell only what matters to the story: the things that Merlin dictated to his master Blaise who lived in Northumberland…and he had Blaise record these adventures for the worthy people who would be eager to hear them told. And we find in Blaise’ writings dictated with authority by Merlin…

What confirms for me that Henry Blois is the instigator of the main content of Robert’s work is the fact that Robert has no motive for consolidating corroboratively the persona of Merlin (found to be different personas) in ‘Geoffrey’s’ HRB and in VM. Yet Robert goes well beyond a story-teller’s expansion of events found in HRB in confirming parts which were blatantly invented by ‘Geoffrey’ concerning Brennius and Belinus.
It is Henry Blois who has supplied the original main content of Robert’s work as he is seen to be adding credence to Henry’s own pseudo-history. Then the city was surrendered and Brenes was crowned emperor and the Romans paid him tribute. That is why it seems to me that you should have lordship over the Romans; you should be emperor of Rome. But one thing more sire; remember how Merlin came to your court the very day you became King. He said there had been two Kings of Britain who had been King of France and Emperor of Rome… Robert de Boron has no motive whatsoever to complement and add credibility to Henry Blois’ pseudo history found in HRB.
There is a whole historical section inserted in Perceval to corroborate and give flesh to that which had been questioned concerning the historicity of HRB and even Arthur himself…. and the question of whether he died or not: Mordred was killed there and so was the Saxon King who had harboured him. And King Arthur was mortally wounded, struck through the chest with a lance.[30] They gathered about Arthur, grieving bitterly but he said to them, ‘stop this grieving for I shall not die. I shall be carried to Avalon where my wounds will be tended by my sister Morgan’. So Arthur was borne to Avalon, telling his people to wait for him, for he would return.

One thing is a certainty; there is only one person who knew before the unearthing of Arthur’s body in 1189-91 where the body was going to be found.  He was the person who had inserted in DA where Arthur’s and Guinevere’s tomb was located. There is only one person who would have added the Vera Historia to the First Variant and would know that Arthur had been hit by a lance.[31]There is only one person who could have known that Arthur and Guinevere were laid in Avalon as specified in the colophon to Perlesvaus.[32]
Scholars could accept that Perlesvaus was written before Robert or Chretien’s work because of certain storyline commonalities but it is still denied by most.  The dating of Perlesaus has had to be denied, because the construct of the  experts theory of chronology concerning the Grail texts would be seen as unfounded if Perlesvaus existed before Arthur’s disinterment.

Concerning Perceval and his quest for the Grail; the nature of the quest should be understood to be modelled on Henry’s own quest for Joseph. The quest for the Holy Grail is based on Henry’s potential find of the island just as it is portrayed in Melkin’s prophecy as a quest (in deciphering the code).
The secondary subject (of the Grail) in the Melkin  prophecy (i.e. the duo fassula not Joseph’s sepulchre) is entwined by location in the same quest. Find Joseph’s relics and you find out what he brought with him. What the prophecy portends most certainly is in the format of a quest.  What one has to do is unlock the riddle by asking the right questions and one will undoubtedly find both the remains of Joseph and the truth about the Grail on Burgh Island.... which directly relates to events after the crucifixion.
The outcome of the discovery of Jesus body will be that all the three major world religions will have to reassess their understanding of the prophets of Israel. The experts will still insist that the Prophecy of Melkin is a fake to save face. They will say the instructions in the prophecy are groundless. They will insist there is no tomb on Burgh Island. They will even prevent a search taking place. Let him who denies the tomb exists before he pillories me[33] or this rambling exposé, be certain that Joseph’s tomb is not there…. for it will be opened at the appointed time.

F.U. LOT

---

[1]Chrétien de Troyes, Erec, Vv. 1915-2024.)

[2]In Chretien’s Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart, it is fairly obvious that he is supplied the material. Since my lady of Champagne wishes me to undertake to write a romance…….. Here Chretien begins his book about the Knight of the Cart. The material and the treatment of it are given and furnished to him by the Countess, and he is simply trying to carry out her concern and intention.

[3] Michael Goldsworthy. And did those feet.

[4] Goldsworthy indicates that scholars admit it is an organic resinous residue surrounding the fibres. 

[5] Geoffroi De Charney was burned at the stake with Jack de Molay, the final Grand Master of the Templars in 1314.

[6] See image 5

[7] A recent discovery of a bible dating as far back as 2,000 years turns modern Christianity on its head.   The Gospel of Barnabas indicates that Jesus may not have been crucified (or at least lived) and does not claim him to be the son of God, but instead a prophet. It states that the Apostle Paul was “The Impostor.” In the Book of Barnabas, Jesus wasn’t crucified, but ascended to heaven alive, and Judas Iscariot was crucified instead. Not that this is any more accurate than the four gospels, it shows that there was a discrepancy about where the body of Jesus went from a very early date. With Joseph’s connection to Ictis and Melkin’s prophecy directing us to the body of Abbadare, it should not take academia too long to figure out the rest.

[8]  It is my opinion that a verse edition of Robert’s four manuscripts once existed which may have come from Henry Blois. The reason for thinking this is because Robert’s work brings together loose ends found in HRB and consolidates Henry’s position concerning the Grail, Joseph, Merlin, Blaise and a host of other loose ends.

[9] See appendix 35

[10] Roger Sherman Loomis (October 31, 1887 – October 11, 1966) an American scholar hailed as the foremost authority on medieval and Arthurian literature.

[11] Arthurian Literature in the middle ages. R.S. Loomis

[12] As I have stated, Henry Blois’ use of the Melkin prophecy spawned, not only the sacred vessel, and the search for the vessel, but provided the template for Arthur’s body to be found in the future on Avalon and Britain’s eventual re-instatement to God (once the question is asked in Grail legend or likewise when the duo fassula is discovered in the prophecy). Yet, the whole of the Matter of Britain is based upon the genuine burial of Joseph on Ineswitrin. The fact that both the prophecy and Joseph become part of Glastonbury’s later lore does not preclude the existence of the prophecy in the time of Henry Blois; especially when we can plainly see the prophecy’s connection to the etymology of the Graal itself (i.e. sang real)…. as the medieval mind would naturally think Jesus blood was contained in the one of the vessels mentioned. If the prophecy itself had been included in DA, Henry Blois would have been exposed by all the commonalities which lead back to Glastonbury, but all the commonalities to Henry Blois shows that he originally was inspired by the prophecy of Melkin.

[13] He must have had a copy because we know the geometry does not apply to Avalon but Burgh Island. It was Henry who converted Glastonbury to Avalon in DA and Perlesvaus.

[14] Richard Barber, Was Mordred buried at Glastonbury.

[15]"who preferred their own traditions before all the churches in the world",

[16] Ptolemy, writing c.140 A.D says of the British Isles, ’they were peopled by descendants of the Hebrew race who were skilled in smelting operations and excelled in working metals’. This is a reference to the people in the south from Dumnonia of the same stock which first traded with Phoenicians in Pytheas’ day.

[17] See note 6.

[18]At this time a certain marvellous vision was revealed by an angel to a certain hermit in Britain concerning St. Joseph the noble decurion who deposed from the cross the body of our Lord, as well as concerning the paten or dish in which our Lord supped with his disciples, whereof the history was written out by the said hermit and is called ‘Of The Graal’ (De Gradali). Now a platter, broad and somewhat deep is called in French ‘gradalis’ or ‘gradale’, wherein costly meats (with their sauce) are want to be set before rich folk by degrees (gradatim), one morsel after another in divers orders, and in the vulgar speech it is called graalz, for that it is grateful and acceptable to him that eateth therein, as well.

[19] Camden:‘where the Aven's waters with the sea are mixed; Saint Michael firmly on a rock is fixed’ refers to the River Avon arriving at the sea around Burgh Island.

[20] Commentators have pondered over the introduction of chess into Perlesvaus, but if I am correct about Henry having first written Tristan and Isolde…. it too has allusions to the game also. The story of the Chess board is elongated in Gautier’s continuation of Perceval, but it does indicate to me Perlesvaus preceded Chrétien’s stories. I will be castigated for positing this as a theory, but I believe it was Henry who improvised an earlier game which resembles chess and named all the pieces on the board which gives us our current game.

[21] One could posit the name derived from the work by Henry’s friend Suger on Louis Le Gros

[22]Observations upon the Prophet Daniel, Issac Newton. Commenting on the fourth beast: By its eyes it was a Seer; and by its mouth speaking great things and changing times and laws, it was a Prophet as well as a King. And such a Seer, a Prophet and a King, is the Church of Rome……..With his mouth he gives laws to kings and nations as an Oracle; and pretends to Infallibility, and that his dictates are binding to the whole world; which is to be a Prophet in the highest degree.

[23] ‘Tristan who never laughed sat beside Bliobleheris’.

[24] Robert de Boron’s prose Merlin from the Modena Manuscript. So said Merlin to his master Blaise, explaining what he had to do. Merlin called him ‘master’ because he had been such a support and guide to his mother.

[25] We can see that there is a possibility of three candidates for which Count of Poitier Henry Blois might have entertained as his Compte de Poitiers (which was synonymous with Poitou), and in the Middle Ages became part of Aquitaine. Louis VII of France (1137–1152) obtained the title through marriage to Eleanore and can be discounted as the Compte to whom Wauchier refers. Henry II of England (1152, 1156–1189) obtained the title through marriage to Eleanore when he married her. William IX (1153–1156) son of Eleanor and Henry II of England was only two when he held the title. Richard Ist, son of Eleanor, also held the title (1169–1196). Henry II would have most probably been referred to as King of England post 1156, and we know that Henry commenced his Grail literature in the era 1158-70. So, one might assume the likely candidate for Wauchier’s reference to the Count is the future Richard I, especially with his connection to Marie of France. Certainly, our Bleheris was not interested in Grail literature while he was at Clugny as there is not a hint of evidence in VM (which was written at this time). I personally believe it is a reference to Richard I where Wauchier refers to him retrospectively as he is known to have had an avid interest in Arthur and was versed in poetry. He had,while in prison, written Ja nus hons pris or Ja nuls om pres  which is addressed to his half-sister Marie de Champagne (read Marie of France) and he wrote it in song, in French and Occitan versions.

[26] As we saw above Barry Cunliffe’s notion of the ingots being found inshore of the rocks is ridiculous in that a coastal navigator setting off with the most precious cargo and capable of sailing 25 km would hit the first obstacle in the mouth of the estuary. This can happen when the crew are drunk like the White ship incident.  To understand the practicalities which determined Burgh Island as the Ictis of old, one has to understand seamanship and what makes Burgh Island the ideal landing spot. Mount Batten by comparison is not an easy place to beach and more practically it does not dry out with the tide over land which carts can traverse at low tide as Diodorus recycles from Pytheas. Any one remotely competent of handling a small vessel would keep well clear of landing a craft at St Michael’s Mount in Cornwall except when tidal conditions are perfect. A Phoenician trader could land under almost any sea condition and tide at Burgh Island by comparison.

[27] Meanwhile Merlin went to Northumberland to tell Blaise of these events, and Blaise wrote them down- and it is by his writings that we have knowledge of them still. In Robert de Boron’s prose Merlin this sentence is repeated twice so that all understand the provenance and transmission of the Grail stories…. much as Henry had used the authority of Walter’s book in the supposed translation which constitutes HRB. In effect, what we are supposed to believe is that, a time traveller (Merlin) relates to Blaise in the sixth century what had transpired after the crucifixion. By this clever concoction we now can believe in the events being recorded as we understand how the tale was transmitted.

[28] For Instance: It was then that Merlin began to make mystical pronouncements of which the book of his prophecies was composed.

[29] The real reason for the prophecy’s arrival at Glastonbury is of course its link to the 601 charter and because the Island was donated to Glastonbury. The link of Ineswitrin has for evermore been obscured by Henry having changed the name on the Melkin prophecy.

[30] This is also found in the Vera Historia de morte Arthuri in a copy of First Variant HRB.

[31] See Chapter 32 Vera Historia de Morte Arthuri

[32]'The author of the High Book of the Grail even claims that his text is copied from a Latin manuscript which was found in the Isle of Avalon in a house of holy religion which sits atop hazardous bog-lands where King Arthur and Queen Guenievre lie'.

[33] Cicero. ……nor should I fear the imputation of arrogance while speaking the truth.