You can also see the new 2019 updated information website of the whole book at https://geoffreyofmonmouth.com/
Summary
My initial aim, as stated in the preface, was
to point out that the relics of Joseph of Arimathea were on Burgh
Island. Others have come to the same conclusion. The relics have not been unearthed simply
because our scholars have advised the owner of Burgh Island that the prophecy
of Melkin is a fake and the geometry displayed therein has no substance. It is
a question of competency versus credentials. One does not have to be an
authority to realise that all the geometry in Melkin’s prophecy is exact and
this could not happen by chance.
There are also glaring questions which I cannot myself answer and these are mainly to do with the alignments of the Michael line and how both Montacute and Burgh Island also had St Michael churches on them at one time. We can understand it is perfectly possible for Melkin to measure the 104 nautical mile line, but how is it that that line passes through Montacute, especially after Father Good's reference to it as the spot where Joseph of Arimathea is buried?
It is these types of questions which have made the decryption of Melkin’s prophecy seem to be highly incredible. However, as we have covered, much of this confusion concerning the Matter of Britain is caused by Henry Blois' composition of HRB and his impersonation of Geoffrey of Monmouth as a nom de Plume.
There are also glaring questions which I cannot myself answer and these are mainly to do with the alignments of the Michael line and how both Montacute and Burgh Island also had St Michael churches on them at one time. We can understand it is perfectly possible for Melkin to measure the 104 nautical mile line, but how is it that that line passes through Montacute, especially after Father Good's reference to it as the spot where Joseph of Arimathea is buried?
It is these types of questions which have made the decryption of Melkin’s prophecy seem to be highly incredible. However, as we have covered, much of this confusion concerning the Matter of Britain is caused by Henry Blois' composition of HRB and his impersonation of Geoffrey of Monmouth as a nom de Plume.
So, let us recap on how we got here from the previous chapters covered already and how
the scholastic community missed what common sense (for the most part) lights upon.
If we start with the Merlin prophecies in HRB and conclude Henry Blois has written them, which I feel I have exposed in this exposé (even showing the reference in Orderic has to be an interpolation by Henry Blois)…. and we know Henry Blois must have written HRB…. because it is painfully obvious the author of the Merlin prophecies is the author of the HRB and VM and the John of Cornwall version of Merlin prophecies (with bogus commentary), supposedly translated for Henry Blois' friend the bishop of Exeter.
Once we understand that it is Henry Blois composing the Merlin prophecies and 'Geoffrey's' HRB, we can then conclude that an array of misinformation has been proffered regarding Geoffrey of Monmouth and how the false trail of charter evidence supposedly signed by Galfridus and the supposed Bishop of Asaph at Oxford was created by Henry Blois, Bishop of Winchester. (see chapter on the Oxford Chaters).
We can now also clearer understand the circumstances under which HRB was composed and its stages of evolution (as I covered in the chapter on the First Variant version)…. and the misinformation was meant to mislead contemporaries to mask Henry Blois’s authorship.
If we start with the Merlin prophecies in HRB and conclude Henry Blois has written them, which I feel I have exposed in this exposé (even showing the reference in Orderic has to be an interpolation by Henry Blois)…. and we know Henry Blois must have written HRB…. because it is painfully obvious the author of the Merlin prophecies is the author of the HRB and VM and the John of Cornwall version of Merlin prophecies (with bogus commentary), supposedly translated for Henry Blois' friend the bishop of Exeter.
Once we understand that it is Henry Blois composing the Merlin prophecies and 'Geoffrey's' HRB, we can then conclude that an array of misinformation has been proffered regarding Geoffrey of Monmouth and how the false trail of charter evidence supposedly signed by Galfridus and the supposed Bishop of Asaph at Oxford was created by Henry Blois, Bishop of Winchester. (see chapter on the Oxford Chaters).
We can now also clearer understand the circumstances under which HRB was composed and its stages of evolution (as I covered in the chapter on the First Variant version)…. and the misinformation was meant to mislead contemporaries to mask Henry Blois’s authorship.
We then should ask, what other Medieval manuscripts have been
tampered with which provide corroborative evidence for Glastonburyana, Arthuriana and what was to become known as the Matiere de Bretagne..... and (as I have covered already) we find that Caradoc’s life of Gildas places a chivalric Arthur at Glastonbury.
Because it is stated that on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, (in life of Gildas) that Arthur is brought into association with Glastonbury, we can deduce Henry Blois is the instigator of the tract. This is because Guinevere is Henry Blois’s invention in HRB.
Consequently, we can then understand how the Modena archivolt has an engraving of an episode from the Life of Gildas depicting the kidnap of Guinevere...when we know Henry Blois must have passed through the city of Modena and by the Cathedral on several occasions on his way to Rome.
We can conclude therefore, that the trips over the 'snowy mountains', the Alps, and Aravian range (mentioned in the prophecies of Merlin as I have covered in the chapter on the Vita Merlini) are all mentioned therein by a person having made the trip to Rome.
We can also understand that Wace’s allusion to the ‘Bernard’ pass is from the same mind along with other expansions which parallel the author’s thinking in HRB which indicate both Wace and Geoffrey are one and the same author (as it is evident that Henry Blois used his own earlier First Variant version to construct the first half of the Roman de Brut published under the impostered name of Wace). Wace did in fact compose the Roman de Rou.
We must not forget while considering Henry Blois' authorial edifice built upon impersonations and interpolations of people and manuscripts mentioned in this expose are directly relevant to what Henry wrote on his self styled obituary on the Mosan Plaques (see chapter on the Mosan Plaques) about.... Art comes before gold and gems, 'the author of books' before all other forms of worth.
Because it is stated that on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, (in life of Gildas) that Arthur is brought into association with Glastonbury, we can deduce Henry Blois is the instigator of the tract. This is because Guinevere is Henry Blois’s invention in HRB.
Consequently, we can then understand how the Modena archivolt has an engraving of an episode from the Life of Gildas depicting the kidnap of Guinevere...when we know Henry Blois must have passed through the city of Modena and by the Cathedral on several occasions on his way to Rome.
We can conclude therefore, that the trips over the 'snowy mountains', the Alps, and Aravian range (mentioned in the prophecies of Merlin as I have covered in the chapter on the Vita Merlini) are all mentioned therein by a person having made the trip to Rome.
We can also understand that Wace’s allusion to the ‘Bernard’ pass is from the same mind along with other expansions which parallel the author’s thinking in HRB which indicate both Wace and Geoffrey are one and the same author (as it is evident that Henry Blois used his own earlier First Variant version to construct the first half of the Roman de Brut published under the impostered name of Wace). Wace did in fact compose the Roman de Rou.
We must not forget while considering Henry Blois' authorial edifice built upon impersonations and interpolations of people and manuscripts mentioned in this expose are directly relevant to what Henry wrote on his self styled obituary on the Mosan Plaques (see chapter on the Mosan Plaques) about.... Art comes before gold and gems, 'the author of books' before all other forms of worth.
So, if
we then follow the Glastonbury connection, (because Henry was Abbot there)…. we must consider Malmesbury’s
book De Antiquitates which convinces us that Avalon is Glastonbury (the name being first heard of in HRB). The book was not only
dedicated to Henry Blois, but the name Avalon was indeed invented by Henry
Blois the author of HRB…. (from the name of a town in the Blois region).
Then, we must understand that the Melkin prophecy, which we know is accurate to within yards in placing Joseph of Arimathea's tomb on Burgh Island, has the name Avalon on it (in the JG version), in the interpolated form which was substituted for Ineswitrin. Yet, after what we have covered so far.... we now know Henry Blois has transposed the name Avallon from a Burgundian town and implanted it in HRB (as Insula Avallonis) while he also has replaced the name of Ineswitrin on the original Melkin Prophecy (existing at Glastonbury in Henry Blois' era) which has come down to the modern era through John of Gastonbury's rendition (naming Insula Avallonis).
Therefore, if the prophecy’s directions are accurate and the name of the island which it locates is deemed invented, we should ask: which island name did the prophecy originally have on it before Henry Blois substituted the name Ineswitrin for his invention of Insula Avallonis? We find that an Island mentioned by William of Malmesbury in DA and GR is donated to Glastonbury in 601 AD.... and one can assume that Island is located in Devon as it was donated by its King to the old church at Glastonbury.
If the data which constructs the line (when decoded from the Melkin prophecy), locates an island in Devon called Burgh Island, we can assume that the chances are that it could been named Ineswitrin at the time Melkin wrote his prophecy and the King donated the Island.
Recapping further evidence, we then look at the etymology of Ineswitrin; we find that it means possibly ‘white tin Island’. (see the chapter on the 601 AD charter mentioned by Malmesbury). We should also ask, (if we understand that Ineswitrin is in Devon)….who might it be, and in what tract, are we misdirected to believe that Ineswitrin is synonymous with Glastonbury? We find it is in Caradoc’s life of Gildas and in the manuscript of Malmesbury's DA (the first composed by Henry Blois and the second interpolated by Henry Blois and to whom it was dedicated).
We also find out that Caradoc died c.1130. (see the chapter on Caradoc) We find also that an episode from Caradoc’s book is found engraved on the Modena archivolt before 1140 just a year after the discovery of Primary Historia edition (HRB) found at Bec in 1139 (summarised in EAW). So, if we look to the author of HRB and life of Gildas; we find he is a bishop making regular trips passing Modena with ample wherewithal and enough authority in the church to have commissioned the engraving which relates to the kidnap of Guinevere episode at Glastonbury.
Then, we must understand that the Melkin prophecy, which we know is accurate to within yards in placing Joseph of Arimathea's tomb on Burgh Island, has the name Avalon on it (in the JG version), in the interpolated form which was substituted for Ineswitrin. Yet, after what we have covered so far.... we now know Henry Blois has transposed the name Avallon from a Burgundian town and implanted it in HRB (as Insula Avallonis) while he also has replaced the name of Ineswitrin on the original Melkin Prophecy (existing at Glastonbury in Henry Blois' era) which has come down to the modern era through John of Gastonbury's rendition (naming Insula Avallonis).
Therefore, if the prophecy’s directions are accurate and the name of the island which it locates is deemed invented, we should ask: which island name did the prophecy originally have on it before Henry Blois substituted the name Ineswitrin for his invention of Insula Avallonis? We find that an Island mentioned by William of Malmesbury in DA and GR is donated to Glastonbury in 601 AD.... and one can assume that Island is located in Devon as it was donated by its King to the old church at Glastonbury.
If the data which constructs the line (when decoded from the Melkin prophecy), locates an island in Devon called Burgh Island, we can assume that the chances are that it could been named Ineswitrin at the time Melkin wrote his prophecy and the King donated the Island.
Recapping further evidence, we then look at the etymology of Ineswitrin; we find that it means possibly ‘white tin Island’. (see the chapter on the 601 AD charter mentioned by Malmesbury). We should also ask, (if we understand that Ineswitrin is in Devon)….who might it be, and in what tract, are we misdirected to believe that Ineswitrin is synonymous with Glastonbury? We find it is in Caradoc’s life of Gildas and in the manuscript of Malmesbury's DA (the first composed by Henry Blois and the second interpolated by Henry Blois and to whom it was dedicated).
We also find out that Caradoc died c.1130. (see the chapter on Caradoc) We find also that an episode from Caradoc’s book is found engraved on the Modena archivolt before 1140 just a year after the discovery of Primary Historia edition (HRB) found at Bec in 1139 (summarised in EAW). So, if we look to the author of HRB and life of Gildas; we find he is a bishop making regular trips passing Modena with ample wherewithal and enough authority in the church to have commissioned the engraving which relates to the kidnap of Guinevere episode at Glastonbury.
Joining the dots out of pure common sense, we
find that Diodorus Siculus (recycling Pytheas) describes an Island which traded in tin on the south west
peninsula and his description of an Island matches topographically the account of the sand drying out at Burgh Island. We have
confirmation that Burgh Island is the Island of Ictis to which Pytheas c350 BC
referred to, because tin Ingots of the same date are found two miles away with a concise
account written by Strabo which explains how the Ingots came to be found at the head
of the Erm estuary in Devon situated a mile or so from Burgh Island. (see the chapter on Pytheas and Ictis).
The confirmation that Burgh Island is Ictis is deduced simply because a Phoenician ship wrecked itself in order to preserve the ‘secrecy of Ictis’ (in Strabo's account) and thus the residue of ingots inshore from the rocks at the entrance to the Erm river mouth. (as discussed earlier in the recent discovery by archaelogical divers)
Once Ictis is established as a tin trading Island in Devon, we remember that Joseph of Arimathea by Dumnonian/Cornish tradition was a tin merchant. Once we establish that Burgh Island (Ictis) and Joseph have a connection through the tin trade, we also remember that Melkin’s prophecy directs us to the same Island purporting to contain Joseph's sepulchre…. with an amazing display of geometric precision (see chapter on Melkin prophecy).
Once we establish why this Island has a connection to Joseph through two different sources i.e. tin trade and Melkin Prophecy; we then ask how is it that Avalon and Joseph are linked.... and we find that the author of the book HRB (who first mentions Avalon) is the abbot of Glastonbury, the same place where a prophecy (of Melkin) is found which links Avalon to Joseph.
Glastonbury is also linked to Joseph very early on by Perlesvaus (and Avalon) and Robert de Boron’s allusion to vaus Avaron. If we follow this trail, we can see there is no natural connection between King Arthur and Joseph (except they are both linked to Glastonbury and Avalon) and we should then ask; in what material do we find this connection to them both?
We see it in Malmesbury's interpolated section of DA, where both King Arthur and Avalon are connected to Glastonbury. We can also grasp that the Grail literature which anachronistically joins King Arthur to Joseph of Arimathea emanates from the Blois region; and its provenance can be connected to close family relations of the Abbot of Glastonbury in Champagne, who are known as the patrons of Chrétien. (see chapter on the Grail legends)
This literature speaks of the Grail which is a vessel which contains the Lord’s blood and it is connected to Joseph and Arthur in continental Arthurian/Grail literature, but also in a tract called the Perlesvaus. This tract relates to and describes the Old church at Glastonbury and its lead roof. Perlesvaus also mentions in the colophon that Guinevere and Arthur are buried at Glastonbury (Avalon, where the manufactured grave was eventually unearthed))…. but more importantly, it speaks of the vessel.... which is also related to the mysterious ‘duo fassula’ in the prophecy of Melkin which emanated from Glastonbury.
We then find that features of the Melkin prophecy relate to the composition of the HRB, because the Island of Avalon (which has been substituted by name in the only extant example of the Prophecy of Melkin in JG) has the same name as the mysterious island where Arthur is last seen (composed by Henry Blois in HRB). This island, as we all know, turns out (eventually) to be synonymous with Glastonbury.
The credibility of this is established for the 'naïve' by the existence of a bogus ‘leaden cross’ found at the unearthing of King Arthur.... which grave site we know was manufactured by Henry Blois (as indicated by the location of where to find it between the piramides) as indicated by Henry Blois in his interpolations into Malmesbury's original De Antiquitates authored by Henry Blois before his death.
The Leaden cross reiterates spuriously (redundantly naming) where the location is.... on which the finder of the cross now stands …. in Avalon. We should never forget that the name Avalon, given to the fictional Island where King Arthur was last seen, is Henry’s own invention from the Burgundian town (named in HRB not EAW).... just as King Arthur's continental battle scene (in the Blois region) at Langres and Autun was described by an author who knew the topography of the terrain around the river Aube (which it is unlikely Geoffrey would have known).
The confirmation that Burgh Island is Ictis is deduced simply because a Phoenician ship wrecked itself in order to preserve the ‘secrecy of Ictis’ (in Strabo's account) and thus the residue of ingots inshore from the rocks at the entrance to the Erm river mouth. (as discussed earlier in the recent discovery by archaelogical divers)
Once Ictis is established as a tin trading Island in Devon, we remember that Joseph of Arimathea by Dumnonian/Cornish tradition was a tin merchant. Once we establish that Burgh Island (Ictis) and Joseph have a connection through the tin trade, we also remember that Melkin’s prophecy directs us to the same Island purporting to contain Joseph's sepulchre…. with an amazing display of geometric precision (see chapter on Melkin prophecy).
Once we establish why this Island has a connection to Joseph through two different sources i.e. tin trade and Melkin Prophecy; we then ask how is it that Avalon and Joseph are linked.... and we find that the author of the book HRB (who first mentions Avalon) is the abbot of Glastonbury, the same place where a prophecy (of Melkin) is found which links Avalon to Joseph.
Glastonbury is also linked to Joseph very early on by Perlesvaus (and Avalon) and Robert de Boron’s allusion to vaus Avaron. If we follow this trail, we can see there is no natural connection between King Arthur and Joseph (except they are both linked to Glastonbury and Avalon) and we should then ask; in what material do we find this connection to them both?
We see it in Malmesbury's interpolated section of DA, where both King Arthur and Avalon are connected to Glastonbury. We can also grasp that the Grail literature which anachronistically joins King Arthur to Joseph of Arimathea emanates from the Blois region; and its provenance can be connected to close family relations of the Abbot of Glastonbury in Champagne, who are known as the patrons of Chrétien. (see chapter on the Grail legends)
This literature speaks of the Grail which is a vessel which contains the Lord’s blood and it is connected to Joseph and Arthur in continental Arthurian/Grail literature, but also in a tract called the Perlesvaus. This tract relates to and describes the Old church at Glastonbury and its lead roof. Perlesvaus also mentions in the colophon that Guinevere and Arthur are buried at Glastonbury (Avalon, where the manufactured grave was eventually unearthed))…. but more importantly, it speaks of the vessel.... which is also related to the mysterious ‘duo fassula’ in the prophecy of Melkin which emanated from Glastonbury.
We then find that features of the Melkin prophecy relate to the composition of the HRB, because the Island of Avalon (which has been substituted by name in the only extant example of the Prophecy of Melkin in JG) has the same name as the mysterious island where Arthur is last seen (composed by Henry Blois in HRB). This island, as we all know, turns out (eventually) to be synonymous with Glastonbury.
The credibility of this is established for the 'naïve' by the existence of a bogus ‘leaden cross’ found at the unearthing of King Arthur.... which grave site we know was manufactured by Henry Blois (as indicated by the location of where to find it between the piramides) as indicated by Henry Blois in his interpolations into Malmesbury's original De Antiquitates authored by Henry Blois before his death.
The Leaden cross reiterates spuriously (redundantly naming) where the location is.... on which the finder of the cross now stands …. in Avalon. We should never forget that the name Avalon, given to the fictional Island where King Arthur was last seen, is Henry’s own invention from the Burgundian town (named in HRB not EAW).... just as King Arthur's continental battle scene (in the Blois region) at Langres and Autun was described by an author who knew the topography of the terrain around the river Aube (which it is unlikely Geoffrey would have known).
Not only does the Melkin prophecy portend the
finding of Joseph’s relics in Avalon, but we are led to believe (by it being
named as the last place Arthur is seen), that King Arthur was
also buried and found in Avalon (if we are to be hoodwinked by Henry Blois' manufacture of the grave at Glastonbury before he died). We know the description in DA of where he was buried existed before Arthur's bogus unearthing as there is none of Gerald's hype about the disinterment found in DA (which completely negates Grandsen's theory of a 'Glastonbury press release').
We can also see that the Grail object is modelled on the enigmatic duo fassula mentioned in the Melkin prophecy which was found at Glastonbury. Especially because the original Melkin prophecy had the name Ineswitrin written on it (before it was substituted for the name of Insula Avallonis); and thus the object concerning Jesus.... which will be found in Joseph's grave on Burgh Island in the near future... pertains to the real existence of the duo fassula mentioned by Melkin and the very reason for him constructing his obtuse puzzle (to be decrypted).
Also the search for the relics of Joseph, (the whole point of the prophecy of Melkin) suggests that the prophecy is encoded and involves the locating of an island; followed by a search for the tomb itself.
Both the enigmatic duo fassula is mirrored in Grail literature and the search for the same object in la quête du Graal (quest) or Chrétien de Troyes Perceval or le Conte du Graal. Here, it is presented as a quest for the same enigmatic object that is said by the Melkin prophecy to be in the tomb i.e. the duo fassula.... along with Joseph’s relics.
Because Henry Blois is employing the prophecy of Melkin as an inspirational template, he too invents a totally fatuous semblance of a hidden meaning (mirroring the decryption of the prophecy) in which the gullible search for meaning in the Grail procession.[1]
This vast array of linked material, which, by association is known as the Matter of Britain (as we have covered by repetition and I hope not tedium), and looking from every perspective throughout these pages…. has two factors which are inextricably linked: Glastonbury and Henry Blois.
The one extraordinary piece of this entire puzzle is wrapped up in the book of DA which coalesces what would seemingly be disparate associations and we know this book was dedicated to.... and then interpolated by Henry Blois. We know it could only be him who transformed his own invented name of Avalon to be commensurate with the physical Glastonbury because Gerald of Wales says the location of Arthur’s body was previously known and was written in Glastonbury annals.... and he wrote that only one or two years after the discovery of King Arthur's bogus grave (manufactured by Henry Blois).
We can also see that the Grail object is modelled on the enigmatic duo fassula mentioned in the Melkin prophecy which was found at Glastonbury. Especially because the original Melkin prophecy had the name Ineswitrin written on it (before it was substituted for the name of Insula Avallonis); and thus the object concerning Jesus.... which will be found in Joseph's grave on Burgh Island in the near future... pertains to the real existence of the duo fassula mentioned by Melkin and the very reason for him constructing his obtuse puzzle (to be decrypted).
Also the search for the relics of Joseph, (the whole point of the prophecy of Melkin) suggests that the prophecy is encoded and involves the locating of an island; followed by a search for the tomb itself.
Both the enigmatic duo fassula is mirrored in Grail literature and the search for the same object in la quête du Graal (quest) or Chrétien de Troyes Perceval or le Conte du Graal. Here, it is presented as a quest for the same enigmatic object that is said by the Melkin prophecy to be in the tomb i.e. the duo fassula.... along with Joseph’s relics.
Because Henry Blois is employing the prophecy of Melkin as an inspirational template, he too invents a totally fatuous semblance of a hidden meaning (mirroring the decryption of the prophecy) in which the gullible search for meaning in the Grail procession.[1]
This vast array of linked material, which, by association is known as the Matter of Britain (as we have covered by repetition and I hope not tedium), and looking from every perspective throughout these pages…. has two factors which are inextricably linked: Glastonbury and Henry Blois.
The one extraordinary piece of this entire puzzle is wrapped up in the book of DA which coalesces what would seemingly be disparate associations and we know this book was dedicated to.... and then interpolated by Henry Blois. We know it could only be him who transformed his own invented name of Avalon to be commensurate with the physical Glastonbury because Gerald of Wales says the location of Arthur’s body was previously known and was written in Glastonbury annals.... and he wrote that only one or two years after the discovery of King Arthur's bogus grave (manufactured by Henry Blois).
If we
ignore the ignorant decrees of the scholarly experts…. it could only be Henry Blois (who
has the copy of DA) who lets everyone know the location, because whoever planted
the body knew where he had located it between the piramides.
It is for this reason Arthur and Guinevere are said to be buried in Avalon in the colophon of Perlesvaus (a tract written before the disinterment of Arthur). It could only have been Henry Blois who knew that Avalon was situated at Glastonbury in the interim years (where it becomes widely accepted) between Henry Blois' death and Arthur’s disinterment. Therefore, it has to be Henry Blois who had the leaden cross constructed (which ludicrously states in which location it is, when it is discovered) and who pointed out where to find the grave by interpolating DA.
It does not take a huge amount of imagination to understand that Henry Blois' inspiration for manufacturing Arthur’s grave (to be found in the future) is based on the prospect of finding Joseph in the future…. spelled out in the Melkin Prophecy. It was originally this prophecy which spoke of an Island named ‘White tin Island’ (which we know exists in Devon, as I have covered under the chapter on the 601AD charter)…. that Joseph’s relics are said to exist there. The reason for them being there is because Joseph was a tin merchant and knew of the Tin vault on the island and buried his son there after the crucifixion.... having departed Jerusalem and sailed across the Mediterranean. Therefore, to those who use common sense, the prophecy of Melkin is not a fake (because of its geometrical and numerical precision), but was extant in the era of Henry Blois.
It is for this reason Arthur and Guinevere are said to be buried in Avalon in the colophon of Perlesvaus (a tract written before the disinterment of Arthur). It could only have been Henry Blois who knew that Avalon was situated at Glastonbury in the interim years (where it becomes widely accepted) between Henry Blois' death and Arthur’s disinterment. Therefore, it has to be Henry Blois who had the leaden cross constructed (which ludicrously states in which location it is, when it is discovered) and who pointed out where to find the grave by interpolating DA.
It does not take a huge amount of imagination to understand that Henry Blois' inspiration for manufacturing Arthur’s grave (to be found in the future) is based on the prospect of finding Joseph in the future…. spelled out in the Melkin Prophecy. It was originally this prophecy which spoke of an Island named ‘White tin Island’ (which we know exists in Devon, as I have covered under the chapter on the 601AD charter)…. that Joseph’s relics are said to exist there. The reason for them being there is because Joseph was a tin merchant and knew of the Tin vault on the island and buried his son there after the crucifixion.... having departed Jerusalem and sailed across the Mediterranean. Therefore, to those who use common sense, the prophecy of Melkin is not a fake (because of its geometrical and numerical precision), but was extant in the era of Henry Blois.
What has prevented these events coming to
light is simply the arrogance of the scholars. They have made some money on the
gravy train regurgitating the same drivel from generation to generation
postulating untenable positions, employing a method peculiar to the modern
medievalist scholars... much like a pick and mix,,, but as clear as mud is any hypothesis which has been put forward.
Some scholars have positively made a cottage industry of inviting all and sundry to contribute papers which they compile into books which agree with their views. Without an explanation provided to the scholars, common sense cannot prevail. Scholars will continue to hide behind an impenetrable wall of learning, which, up until now, has had to be accepted because they are supposedly the experts.
Some scholars have positively made a cottage industry of inviting all and sundry to contribute papers which they compile into books which agree with their views. Without an explanation provided to the scholars, common sense cannot prevail. Scholars will continue to hide behind an impenetrable wall of learning, which, up until now, has had to be accepted because they are supposedly the experts.
There
are three critical premises upon which modern scholarship’s erroneous edifice
is built. When these a prioris are
not accepted (founded upon an unclear chronology of events), a clearer picture... of not only the Matter of Britain
emerges, but also how Glastonbury lore, Geoffrey of Monmouth's work and Grail literature all became linked through the propagandist output of Henry Blois.
Firstly, if one does not insist that a
mention of Arthur’s name in DA could only transpire by interpolation after the
exhumation of his bones (this fact being insisted upon by modern scholars), the answer to several questions become more
discernible, because several solutions become tenable…. which, by erroneous
chronology had been previously denied. For instance: Why is Gerald saying there
is previous knowledge of King Arthur's burial location; why dig in that particular spot etc.
If we accept that the location was pointed out in which Arthur was buried with his wife, in between the piramides…. we have to accept it is highly probable it was Henry Blois (once we have allowed this possibility) considering he is the composer of HRB and is responsible for the invention of the Chivalric persona of Arthur found only in that book.
There is no rational reason why the interpolation in DA mentioning the location of Arthur’s grave could not have been in DA before King Arthur's supposed disinterment, given that Henry Blois is responsible for the most part of the interpolation in the first 34 chapters of DA.
One reason we should allow this possibility is that there is no other information surrounding the disinterment provided in DA. If the mention of Arthur’s gravesite had been a later interpolation (after the exhumation) some circumstances would have been related in DA and certainly the cross would have been mentioned in that book. Henry Blois provided the only information he could before his death by interpolating DA (while remaining incognito).
The entire account would not have been left in the hands of Gerald of Wales to relate. Once this position is understood….it opens a multitude of positions concerning not only chronology of the events (especially concerning the authorship of Perlesvaus, its mention of the burial of Arthur and Guinevere on Avalon and its mention of the church at Glastonbury with 'lead roof'), but also who did what and who wrote what when.... (especially concerning the inter-relation of the Kidnap episode in Caradoc's Life of Gildas to the engraving of the episode on the Modena Archivolt.... which could not be later that 1140.
If we accept that the location was pointed out in which Arthur was buried with his wife, in between the piramides…. we have to accept it is highly probable it was Henry Blois (once we have allowed this possibility) considering he is the composer of HRB and is responsible for the invention of the Chivalric persona of Arthur found only in that book.
There is no rational reason why the interpolation in DA mentioning the location of Arthur’s grave could not have been in DA before King Arthur's supposed disinterment, given that Henry Blois is responsible for the most part of the interpolation in the first 34 chapters of DA.
One reason we should allow this possibility is that there is no other information surrounding the disinterment provided in DA. If the mention of Arthur’s gravesite had been a later interpolation (after the exhumation) some circumstances would have been related in DA and certainly the cross would have been mentioned in that book. Henry Blois provided the only information he could before his death by interpolating DA (while remaining incognito).
The entire account would not have been left in the hands of Gerald of Wales to relate. Once this position is understood….it opens a multitude of positions concerning not only chronology of the events (especially concerning the authorship of Perlesvaus, its mention of the burial of Arthur and Guinevere on Avalon and its mention of the church at Glastonbury with 'lead roof'), but also who did what and who wrote what when.... (especially concerning the inter-relation of the Kidnap episode in Caradoc's Life of Gildas to the engraving of the episode on the Modena Archivolt.... which could not be later that 1140.
Secondly, if there is no
insistence that Avalon was not previously know as Glastonbury before the leaden
cross was discovered, this then allows that in the interim between Henry Blois
death and the disinterment…. an understanding of Avalon as Glastonbury, at least
was known at the abbey.... because it was written in DA. It then becomes possible
to explain how it is that the forerunner of Perlesvaus, said to be in Latin and
written at Avalon, which tells of Arthur and Guinevere’s burial at Glastonbury,
could have existed as a text prior to the disinterment. This, therefore, enables us also
to implicate Henry Blois as the original inventor of Grail material which ties
the Grail, Avalon, Arthur and Joseph all to Glastonbury. But, more importantly
to Master Blehis…. said by Gerald to have lived ‘shortly before our time.’[2]
But this position confutes entirely Logario’s synopsis of events and allows
that Joseph in Perlesvaus could pre-exist Arthur’s exhumation and of course to
be present in chapters one and two of DA in 1171.
Thirdly, the most despicable act of
negligence and intransigence by modern scholarship is the insistence that
Melkin’s prophecy is a fake. On this subject in particular there are only
haughty pronouncements of hot air (especially by Carley). The denial of the geometry found in the
prophecy of Melkin could only be maintained by someone with a good reason to
reject it; and it is not the geometry which lacks veracity.
It is simply not possible to possess so many distinctions after ones name, and not understand that the geometry locates Burgh Island; and also to be cognisant of the fact that an island in Devon was donated to Glastonbury (and the line which locates the island (decrypted from the clues in the prophecy) passes over Montacute.... is 104 miles long.... and is at 13 degrees to the Michael line).....just as the prophecy indicates.
The real crux to finding the solution to the Matter of Britain is that any investigator has to realise that there has been single-minded fraud at Glastonbury and this same mind has proliferated Grail lore and Arthuriana to the continent.
The general consensus of scholarship which promotes a view that many different monks over time each added his own interpolation into DA and miraculously lore concerning Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury just evolved by a fortuitous convergence of factors is shown to be incorrect and fatuous. This was Lagorio's position and it has been cloned by the likes of Carley and Crick
It is simply not possible to possess so many distinctions after ones name, and not understand that the geometry locates Burgh Island; and also to be cognisant of the fact that an island in Devon was donated to Glastonbury (and the line which locates the island (decrypted from the clues in the prophecy) passes over Montacute.... is 104 miles long.... and is at 13 degrees to the Michael line).....just as the prophecy indicates.
The real crux to finding the solution to the Matter of Britain is that any investigator has to realise that there has been single-minded fraud at Glastonbury and this same mind has proliferated Grail lore and Arthuriana to the continent.
The general consensus of scholarship which promotes a view that many different monks over time each added his own interpolation into DA and miraculously lore concerning Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury just evolved by a fortuitous convergence of factors is shown to be incorrect and fatuous. This was Lagorio's position and it has been cloned by the likes of Carley and Crick
The Reverend F. U. Lot.
[1] The Grail
procession is a fatuous invention with seemingly mystical relevance, which in
fact uses two other icons, the Menorah and the lance mentioned in the Gospel of
John 19:34, One of the soldiers, however,
made a thrust at His (Jesus) side with a lance, and immediately blood and water flowed out. Henry Blois
recognises the duo fassula as a
religious object but has no idea what it is except from the allusion to two
vessels in the prophecy. However, at the battle of Ascalon where Henry’s father
was killed, Raymond of Aguilers carried the relic of the Holy Lance that
had been discovered recently at Antioch.
[2] The passage
in which Gerald of Wales refers to Bledhericus, famosus ille fabulator
who tempora nostra paulo praevenit, was written c. 1194. So, Gerald has no idea the man who he refers
to who had died 20 years previously, was in fact his patron in his youth i.e. Henry Blois
