It’s called a myth for one reason - to dispossess the Britons of Britain, not only their land but their identity. If there are no Britons prior to the Germanics, then the Germanics wouldn’t have stolen anything. No victims, no crime so to speak. This is also why they like to call the Britons Welsh! So the people of Wales themselves dissociate themselves from their Brythonic history and will no longer defend it. Afterall, records won’t be using the word “Welsh” in the Dark ages and before. Many western English people are also Britons but have also fallen for the lies.

Love it!

Amazing find. and great video thank you!

Excellent video but If it’s a 14th Century map it is of the 1300s, not the 1500s. If it’s the 1500s, as you say, it is a 16th century map. But you are essentially correct and this backs up the work of Wilson and Blackett, now deceased, who were demonised by the English Establishment for their discoveries (Google Pro Anima Artorius or read Adrian Gilbert’s book The Holy Kingdom, which tells of their rediscovery of Arthur as a king of Gwent.) it is also not generally realised that in sixth century Wales, although it sounds odd to us nowadays, if you were the son of a king, you were also referred to as a king, even if your ruling father was still living. The word prince was used by the Anglo Saxons, but not by the Welsh, who only used the modern term Tywysog, or Prince, much later.. You are entirely right about all this but historians do not want to admit that they have allowed Church and state under the English (German) crown to muddy the waters about Welsh history for their own ends. They do not want Welsh people remembering their own history. Welsh pupils were taught all of this as history in schools until the 1920s, when the education authorities got rid of it. They had also got rid of all Welsh teachers and replaced them with English speaking ones, even though the kids could speak only Welsh. This was all done when England was seen as the head of a great empire and Britain was seen as a world power, so everything had to be British orientated. It was why attempts were made to kill off the Welsh language too (fail). Incidentally, it is also why in TV sitcoms to this day, any Welsh character is usually depicted as slow witted, slow talking, and an object of humour. Nothing new in that, as Shakespeare had also lampooned the Welsh in his plays. The old prejudices go on forever, it seems. I could add much more relevant information, if you would like it.

This is interesting, I am not British nor have any sort of kinship with the peoples of the isles however growing up in my country my grandparents would teach me many subjects and one of them was the history of my own people as well as the history of other peoples, they were both very well educated and could read in Latin, Greek, English, Portuguese and Spanish, when they taught me about the history of the British peoples and the isles of Great Britain and Ireland they spoke of Arthur as a real leader of the Celtic Romans who sought to defend the country of the Romanized celts from the Anglo Saxon invasions, the kingdom of Britain at that point could be described as an independent patchwork of petty kingdoms ruled by a “High King” who likely held to a Roman title, the western Roman Empire had basically abandoned the isles to defend its heartlands during the many barbaric invasions of that Time which created this state of affairs, my grandparents taught me history as it is on this book: later writers would expand the legend of this very successful and important Roman Celtic(Welsh) commander and this would give rise to a great poetic tradition known as the Arthurian legends or cycles, after Arthur’s death(or depart to Avalon I guess) the Germanic peoples would drive the romanized celts into the mountainous lands now known as Wales and most of the isle of Great Britain would become the realms of divided Anglo Saxon kingdoms who wore against each-other until the later Danish invasions in a later period of the Middle Ages.

Where can we see that map online?

Tywysog dw i. Y gwir yn erbyn y byd. The history of Cymru is deliberately hidden because it underpins everything. When you realise Briton was the land of the gauls, have a look what the name for Cymru is in latin derrived languages. It is the land of the Gauls, our history is thousands of years old. We were the first christian nation, and always the enemies of the romans. Heddwch â bendithion

King Arthur was real, a cymro. The english mornarchy know it, they all have Arthur as a middle name. The cover up is very deep and began with the romans. Our real history goes back thousands of years. Wales is a slur, which means foreignor. The name for Cymru is various other latin derrived languages is the land of the gauls. Much to share, tywysog dw i. Y gwir yn erbyn y byd. Heddwch â bendithion

Thanks, that was great! 👍

Treating Arthur as real. Wow. I found a book, by Stephen r. Lakehead, Arthur. It's the opposite of the 1400 stories, lancelot Camalot. It's the earlier 700 original story. This story has merlin, the fisher king, his mother's husband. Arthur, gweniviere, the others in the group. Their loyalty is lived, and profoundly felt. And at the end, the fisher kings castle, Arthur's abodes, in Avalon, disappeared, never to reappear again, after Arthur was seriously wounded. I cried. And cried. End of a good Era, in with the bad. ....I expect Avalon to reappear as we enter the 5th dimension. ..bit poetry, writ in new testament style.

I was never taught about king arthur in school. it was considered a fantasy.

You REALLY need a wind muff on your mic, even a small piece of foam rubber will work.

Pavlov's Dog ok let's Play A Game..what 🖼️ cometh to mind when u hear a Word.."Camelot" Monty Python? "Avalon" 😎 Songs about 💕 n Hope. Imagine how much Darker the Ages . without such 🌞 songs+1 ❤️

Apparently the Vikings & Norman conquest also took over parts of Ireland & Tudor King Henry 8th of England proclaimed himself King of Ireland in 1541. It was said that Gaelic Ireland was sadly defeated at the battle of Kinsale in 1601. Henry tudor the 8th oversaw the annexation of Wales to England with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 & became Lord & King of Ireland & England from 1542, Edward Tudor the 6th became King of Ireland & England in 1547, Mary Tudor the 1st became Queen of Ireland & England in 1553, Elizabeth Tudor the 1st - became Queen of Ireland & England in 1559, James Stewart the 1st became King of Ireland & England in 1603. In 1633 Charles the 1st became King of England, Scotland, and Ireland. After Oliver Cromwell, .. committed regicide against Charles the 1st in 1649 & replaced the Constitutional Monarchy with Republicanism & the Commonwealth of England, .. Cromwell led a Parliamentary invasion of Ireland from 1649 to 1650 where Oliver Cromwell & later for a short time his son Richard Cromwell, became Lord Protector of the Common-wealth of England, Scotland & Ireland, .. With the Restoration, Charles Stuart the 2nd became King of England, Ireland & Scotland from 1660, Anne Stuart became Queen of Great Britain & Ireland from 1707 after the Act of Union. Ireland remained a separate kingdom, unrepresented in Parliament, and was legally subordinate to Great Britain until the Renunciation Act of 1783 & the offical union with Ireland finally came about on 1 January 1801? Ps - the Scoti of Scotland came from Ireland.

Hahaha I love it! ❤❤❤

Of course also worth mentioning, Arthur was almost certainly a Latin as he is said to be a descendant of Ambrosius, the first Bishop of Milan. Perhaps even more surprisingly, his family line may exist to this very day! Now I do know that may sound like a bit of a stretch (and it is) but I have done a lot of research over the years and spent much time with these people and all I can say is that I am now absolutely convinced. They truly do have the mark of Arthur! (And yet, oddly enough, themselves seem to know nothing about him, nor English history for that matter.) Anyway, I will be glad to elaborate in case anyone is curious to hear more about this amazing "discovery".

Its the msn getting told 🤑 to try and terror and confused us so they can push their agenda forward 🙃

11.34 pronounced "Hanness" Britain's Hidden History identified the "mysterious" Badon Hill as Mynydd Baiden

Brilliant work, showing the obvious and the orchestrated obfuscation of the truth. Thank you!

New name: Once-Great Britain. Bye-bye, Britain, you were once great.

Well I've never heard that one before. The Romans called Southern Britain Britannia Major and Northern Britain (North of the Humber) Britannia Minor. But I was always under the impression that it was James the first who gave it that name after joining Scotland to England when he became king of both countries.

What sources does this schoolbook use? As for Geoffrey of Monmouth, he was writing a fictional Arthur to honour the memory and family of Alan Rufus, the most senior of the three founders of Monmouth Priory. Alan’s mother was Cornish and his father’s lineage were the Counts of Gwened who were also the Dukes and Kings of Brittany. Geffrei Gaimar and Wace of Jersey were also admirers of Alan Rufus. Alan’s achievements surpassed those of the fictional Arthur: Alan’s strategic command and personal prowess were the decisive factors in the thorough defeat of the Anglo-Saxons whose leader Harold Godwinson had genocided the Welsh just three years earlier. Alan was the narrator of the Bayeux Tapestry, mastermind behind Domesday, chastiser of King William for the Harrying of the North, victor over the Norman baronial rebellion of 1088, and founder of Parliament in 1089. Alan deliberately placed his caput at Richmond, in the very heart of the Isle of Britain, overlooking the site where St Paulinus baptised the Northumbrians, and upstream of Catraeth which he had liberated from the English Earls and so avenged Gododdin. Alan’s epitaph at Bury St Edmunds alludes to his descent from the Aurelii through Rutilia Rufa, grandmother of Caesar.

There are no words for this

Really super cool stuff. Love history maps in literature, there is a lot more there than is understood. I do have a devil's point to make: Who's to say that a late teen early 20's young prince already with a family and a kid, does take the reigns as army leader or a part of such as the cavalry for his Father the King (a la Alexander so there is precedent)...Arthur is called Dux Bellorum. And fighting off the Saxons could have been easily killed in battle before his dad died. In that world, in those times, was a common enough occurance.

Spurious=spyros 😅😅

Visited many times.....listening.. Thank you...please note... Us original britons have not been told the truth of our history.....??

i wonder if this was to provide a more legitimate claim for the Windsor Royals, by removing or downplaying of other possible royal bloodlines ? when did the Windsors introduce the idea of the next in line being known as 'Prince of Wales' .... note the Windsors where imported from Germany ...

Caerleon is indeed a fortress of Roman founding, at Caerleon, there is an amphitheater which is round, it takes little imagination to see this as a round table well able to accommodate a large force of Knights/warriors.

Unusually intriguing, I think. Never lost interest. Good presentation

As a seeker of Brythonic truths I value your review of this previously (to me) unknown gem. Cheers Biker Bulldogs.

Like the indigenous children of North America, the Welsh children of the early 20thC were forbidden from speaking their native tongue at school. In Wales any kid found speaking Welsh could be "snitched on." The only way to avoid a beating on the friday was to snitch on another Welsh speaking child. Those who were the current targets for the beating had to wear a board around their neck like some bizarre necklace. It was known as "The Welsh Knot." At least the Welsh children got to go back to hearth & home at the end of the day. Native American children were forced into boarding schools.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 King Arthur of the sword, the round table and of Camelot is from the fifth century, along with his cousin Glywys. Ogmore Castle was built in the early twelfth century. That stone is likely to be fake. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Nice job. It is unsurprising that so many people believe what they have been told and do not / will not read and look at factual historical accounts. I hope your work helps to rid British History of its anti-welsh, pro-roman and saxon bs.

Baram Blackett and Alan Wilson have researched this extensively.

Never was proven so just another British myth the make believe king Arthur was as real as Sherlock Holmes 😂😂

I'd be very wary of any book which called Dyfrig Dubritius, or made him a Bishop of Caerleon (not impossible, but he was from Ergyng).

I agree that Welsh, and English and Scottish youngsters should be taught more about their own histories. But Arthur was not an historical figure. Historians have examined this matter closely. The whole thing comes from an epic Welsh poem written centuries after the supposed events. 'Though brave, he was not Arthur' - that is all it says.

Not sure if you know but the site of 'Camelot' is thought to be the Iron Age hill fort called South Cadbury Castle in Somerset. From there you can see the Tor at Glastonbury,. Once again thank you for another interesting video.

a lot of this 'information' must come from Bede and the AngloSaxon chronicles, there is so much we don't know. And to say that the Scots attacked Welsh land in the 6th century from Ireland seems odd, i have never heard that before, the Scots would have attacked Strathclyde and Cumbria from Scotland, which is why the Welsh wanted English mercenaries to crush the Scots.

Great video, today I've learnt something. My grandfather's first language was Welsh but later as you have stated that language was almost eradicated by the English. I too would like a copy of that book. As the old Celtic was spoken and not a written language the Bards would have told long tales around the fires in halls and campfires long before Geoffrey of Monmouth put pen to paper, shame they were lost. It always amazes me that the historians haven't considered why there are river Avons in England as the name for river in Welsh is afon. You don't need to be a mastermind candidate to see the connection. The area around the Bristol Avon was only taken by the AngloSaxons after a battle in 577AD probably 50 years or more after the legendary battle of Mons Badonicus which Arthur destroyed the Saxon army. You can almost hear a psychopathic Celtic warlord telling the defeated Saxon leader that if they crossed to Afon (Avon after years of mispronunciation and spelling) there would be trouble.

I knew he had to be a Welchman.

Not sure where the idea comes from that Welsh teachers were replaced by English teachers (in 1922?)

Really interesting, thank you

Cheers mate

That's a real treasure of a book you have there. Disappointed I can't find a copy available on the interwebs anywhere. Isn't it so cool to find something so interesting!

Shaky cam!!! Invest in a tripod, sir. Or learn how to insert your narration on a screenshot of your source book.

Excellent work, thank you.

Please note: I deliberately scrolled through all the many pictures on the site, not to bore you, only to show that the important stone has but one sole picture, and nothing of its significant inscription.

Great post king Arthur is not legend but fact. This makes the Americans Rage with Hatred, as you know we Yanks are taught to Deny all the wonderful British history: as id USA Genocide Research List of Issues Volume 8, Issue 4 Settler colonialism and the elimination os natives Indians Journal of Genocide Research Volume 8, 2006 - Settler colonialism and the elimination of the nativ The question of genocide is never far from discussions of settler colonialism. Land is life-or, at least, land is necessary for life. Thus contests for land can be-indeed, often are-contests for life. Yet this is not to say that settler colonialism is simply a form of genocide. In some settler-colonial sites (one thinks, for instance, of Fiji), native society was able to accommodate-though hardly unscathed-the invaders and the transformative socioeconomic system that they introduced. Even in sites of wholesale expropriation such as Australia or North America, settler colonialism's genocidal outcomes have not manifested evenly across time or space. Native Title in Australia or Indian sovereignty in the US may have deleterious features, but these are hardly equivalent to the impact of frontier homicide. Moreover, there can be genocide in the absence of settler colonialism. The best known of all genocides was internal to Europe, while genocides that have been perpetrated in, for example, Armenia, Cambodia, Rwanda or (one fears) Darfur do not seem to be assignable to settler colonialism. In this article, I shall begin to explore, in comparative fashion, the relationship between genocide and the settler-colonial tendency that I term the logic of elimination.Footnote1 I contend that, though the two have converged-which is to say, the settler-colonial logic of elimination has manifested as genocidal-they should be distinguished. Settler colonialism is inherently eliminatory but not invariably genocidal. As practised by Europeans, both genocide and settler colonialism have typically employed the organizing grammar of race. European xenophobic traditions such as anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or Negrophobia are considerably older than race, which, as many have shown, became discursively consolidated fairly late in the eighteenth century.Footnote2 But the mere fact that race is a social construct does not of itself tell us very much. As I have argued, different racial regimes encode and reproduce the unequal relationships into which Europeans coerced the populations concerned. For instance, Indians and Black people in the US have been racialized in opposing ways that reflect their antithetical roles in the formation of US society. Black people's enslavement produced an inclusive taxonomy that automatically enslaved the offspring of a slave and any other parent. In the wake of slavery, this taxonomy became fully racialized in the “one-drop rule,” whereby any amount of African ancestry, no matter how remote, and regardless of phenotypical appearance, makes a person Black. For Indians, in stark contrast, non-Indian ancestry compromised their indigeneity, producing “half-breeds,” a regime that persists in the form of blood quantum regulations. As opposed to enslaved people, whose reproduction augmented their owners' wealth, Indigenous people obstructed settlers' access to land, so their increase was counterproductive. In this way, the restrictive racial classification of Indians straightforwardly furthered the logic of elimination. Thus we cannot simply say that settler colonialism or genocide have been targeted at particular races, since a race cannot be taken as given. It is made in the targeting.Footnote3 Black people were racialized as slaves; slavery constituted their blackness. Correspondingly, Indigenous North Americans were not killed, driven away, romanticized, assimilated, fenced in, bred White, and otherwise eliminated as the original owners of the land but as Indians. Roger Smith has missed this point in seeking to distinguish between victims murdered for where they are and victims murdered for who they are.Footnote4 So far as Indigenous people are concerned, where they are is who they are, and not only by their own reckoning. As Deborah Bird Rose has pointed out, to get in the way of settler colonization, all the native has to do is stay at home.Footnote5 Whatever settlers may say-and they generally have a lot to say-the primary motive for elimination is not race (or religion, ethnicity, grade of civilization, etc.) but access to territory. Territoriality is settler colonialism's specific, irreducible element. The logic of elimination not only refers to the summary liquidation of Indigenous people, though it includes that. In common with genocide as Raphaël Lemkin characterized it,Footnote6 settler colonialism has both negative and positive dimensions. Negatively, it strives for the dissolution of native societies. Positively, it erects a new colonial society on the expropriated land base-as I put it, settler colonizers come to stay: invasion is a structure not an event.Footnote7 In its positive aspect, elimination is an organizing principal of settler-colonial society rather than a one-off (and superseded) occurrence. The positive outcomes of the logic of elimination can include officially encouraged miscegenation, the breaking-down of native title into alienable individual freeholds, native citizenship, child abduction, religious conversion, resocialization in total institutions such as missions or boarding schools, and a whole range of cognate biocultural assimilations. All these strategies, including frontier homicide, are characteristic of settler colonialism. Some of them are more controversial in genocide studies than others. Settler colonialism destroys to replace. As Theodor Herzl, founding father of Zionism, observed in his allegorical manifesto/novel, “If I wish to substitute a new building for an old one, I must demolish before I construct.”Footnote8 In a kind of realization that took place half a century later, one-time deputy-mayor of West Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti recalled, “As a member of a pioneering youth movement, I myself ‘made the desert bloom’ by uprooting the ancient olive trees of al-Bassa to clear the ground for a banana grove, as required by the ‘planned farming’ principles of my kibbutz, Rosh Haniqra.”Footnote9 Renaming is central to the cadastral effacement/replacement of the Palestinian Arab presence that Benvenisti poignantly recounts.Footnote10 Comparably, though with reference to Australia, Tony Birch has charted the contradictory process whereby White residents sought to frustrate the (re-) renaming of Gariwerd back from the derivative “Grampians” that these hills had become in the wake of their original owners' forcible dispossession in the nineteenth century.Footnote11 Ideologically, however, there is a major difference between the Australian and Israeli cases. The prospect of Israeli authorities changing the Hebrew place-names whose invention Benvenisti has described back to their Arabic counterparts is almost unimaginable. In Australia, by contrast (as in many other settler societies), the erasure of indigeneity conflicts with the assertion of settler nationalism. On the one hand, settler society required the practical elimination of the natives in order to establish itself on their territory. On the symbolic level, however, settler society subsequently sought to recuperate indigeneity in order to express its difference-and, accordingly, its independence-from the mother country. Hence it is not surprising that a progressive Australian state government should wish to attach an indigenous aura to a geographical feature that bore the second-hand name of a British mountain range. Australian public buildings and official symbolism, along with the national airlines, film industry, sports teams and the like, are distinguished by the ostentatious borrowing of Aboriginal motifs. For nationalist purposes, it is hard to see an alternative to this contradictory reappropriation of a foundationally disavowed Aboriginality. The ideological justification for the dispossession of Aborigines was that “we” could use the land better than they could, not that we had been on the land primordially and were merely returning home. One cannot imagine the Al-Quds/Jerusalem suburb of Kfar Sha'ul being renamed Deir Yasin. Despite this major ideological difference, however, Zionism still betrays a need to distance itself from its European origins that recalls the settler anxieties that characterize Australian national discourse. Yiddish, for instance, was decisively rejected in favour of Hebrew-a Hebrew inflected, what is more, with the accents of the otherwise derided Yemeni mizrachim. Analogously, as Mark LeVine has noted, though the Zionist modernization of the Arab city of Jaffa was intended to have a certain site specificity, “in fact Jaffa has had to be emptied of its Arab past and Arab inhabitants in order for architects to be able to reenvision the region as a ‘typical Middle Eastern city’.”Footnote12 In its positive aspect, therefore, settler colonialism does not simply replace native society tout court. Rather, the process of replacement maintains the refractory imprint of the native counter-claim. This phenomenon is not confined to the realm of symbolism. In the Zionist case, for instance, as Gershon Shafir has cogently shown, the core doctrine of the conquest of labour, which produced the kibbutzim and Histadrut, central institutions of the Israeli state, emerged out of the local confrontation with Arab Palestinians in a form fundamentally different from the pristine doctrine of productivization that had originally been coined in Europe. The concept of productivization was developed in response to the self-loathing that discriminatory exclusions from productive industry encouraged i nAmerica

"Every rhythm cycle has its own particular rhythm riff which has a melodic tone." -Zakir Hussain / American Heritage Dictionary: RIFF - Music A short rhythmic phrase, especially one that is repeated in improvisation.